1: %%

2: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}

3: 

4: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:

5: 

6: %\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}

7: %\usepackage{graphics}

8: %\usepackage{mathptmx}

9: %\usepackage{natbib}

10: %\usepackage{amsmath}

11: 

12: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:

13: 

14: %% \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}

15: 

16: %% Sometimes a paper's abstract is too long to fit on the

17: %% title page in preprint2 mode. When that is the case,

18: %% use the longabstract style option.

19: 

20: %% \documentclass[preprint2,longabstract]{aastex}

21: 

22: \def\kms{\mbox{${\rm km}\:{\rm s}^{-1}\,$}}

23: \def\kmsb{\mbox{${\rm km}\:{\rm s}^{-1}$}}

24: \def\kpc{\mbox{${\rm kpc}^{-1}\:$}}

25: \def\arcmin{\mbox{${\rm arcmin}^{-1}\:$}}

26: \def\mloss{\mbox{$M_\odot \: yr^{-1}\:$}}

27: %\DeclareMathOperator{\cov}{cov}

28: %\bibliographystyle{apj}

29: 

30: 

31: \newcommand{\Deg}{\hbox{${}^\circ$\llap{.}}}

32: \newcommand{\Min}{\hbox{${}^{\prime}$\llap{.}}}

33: \newcommand{\Sec}{\hbox{${}^{\prime\prime}$\llap{.}}}

34: 

35: \newcommand{\Teff}{$T_{\!\mbox{\scriptsize\em eff}}$}

36: \newcommand{\yeff}{$y_{\!\mbox{\scriptsize eff}}$}

37: %%\newcommand{\$T_{eff}$q}{$T_{\!\mbox{\scriptsize \em eff}}^4$}

38: \newcommand{\zsun}{$Z_\odot$}

39: \newcommand{\msun}{$M_\odot$}

40: \newcommand{\ebv}{$E(B-V)$}

41: \newcommand{\hi}{H\,{\sc i}\rm}

42: \newcommand{\hii}{H{\sc ii}\rm}

43: \newcommand{\hei}{He\,{\sc i}\rm}

44: \newcommand{\heii}{He\,{\sc ii}\rm}

45: %\newcommand{\siii}{[S\,{\sc iii}]}

46: %\newcommand{\nii}{[N\,{\sc ii}]}

47: \newcommand{\oiii}{[O\,{\sc iii}]}

48: %\newcommand{\oii}{[O\,{\sc ii}]}

49: \newcommand{\sii}{[S\,{\sc ii}]}

50: \newcommand{\ariii}{[Ar\,{\sc iii}]}

51: \newcommand{\neiii}{[Ne\,{\sc iii}]}

52: 

53: \newcommand{\caii}{Ca\,{\sc ii}}

54: \newcommand{\cai}{Ca\,{\sc i}}

55: \newcommand{\siii}{Si\,{\sc ii}}

56: \newcommand{\siiii}{Si\,{\sc iii}}

57: \newcommand{\siiv}{Si\,{\sc iv}}

58: \newcommand{\oi}{O\,{\sc i}}

59: \newcommand{\oii}{O\,{\sc ii}}

60: \newcommand{\nii}{N\,{\sc ii}}

61: \newcommand{\niii}{N\,{\sc iii}}

62: \newcommand{\cii}{C\,{\sc ii}}

63: \newcommand{\ciii}{C\,{\sc iii}}

64: \newcommand{\mgii}{Mg\,{\sc ii}}

65: \newcommand{\fei}{Fe\,{\sc i}}

66: \newcommand{\feii}{Fe\,{\sc ii}}

67: \newcommand{\tiii}{Ti\,{\sc ii}}

68: \newcommand{\crii}{Cr\,{\sc ii}}

69: 

70: \newcommand{\te}{$T_e$}

71: \newcommand{\hbeta}{H$\beta$}

72: \newcommand{\halpha}{H$\alpha$}

73: \newcommand{\lin}{$\,\lambda$}

74: \newcommand{\llin}{$\,\lambda\lambda$}

75: \newcommand{\fglr}{\sc fglr~\rm}

76: 

77: \newcommand{\bb}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{\AA}}} 

78: 

79: \slugcomment{}

80: 

81: \shorttitle{Distance and Metallicity for WLM}

82: \shortauthors{Urbaneja et al.}

83: 

84: \begin{document}

85: 

86: %\journalinfo{The Astrophysical Journal}

87: %\submitted{}

88: 

89: \title{The Araucaria Project: The Local Group Galaxy WLM - Distance and Metallicity from Quantitative Spectroscopy of Blue Supergiants\altaffilmark{1}}

90: 

91: \author{Miguel A.~Urbaneja} \affil{Institute for Astronomy, 2680 Woodlawn

92: Drive, Honolulu, HI 96822; urbaneja@ifa.hawaii.edu}

93: 

94: \author{Rolf-Peter Kudritzki} \affil{Institute for Astronomy, 2680 Woodlawn

95: Drive, Honolulu, HI 96822; kud@ifa.hawaii.edu}

96: 

97: \author{Fabio Bresolin} \affil{Institute for Astronomy, 2680 Woodlawn

98: Drive, Honolulu, HI 96822; bresolin@ifa.hawaii.edu}

99: 

100: \author{Norbert Przybilla} \affil{Dr. Remeis-Sternwarte Bamberg,

101: Sternwartstr. 7, D-96049 Bamberg, Germany;

102: przybilla@sternwarte.uni-erlangen.de}

103: 

104: 

105: \author{Wolfgang Gieren} \affil{Universidad de Concepci\'on, Departamento de Astronom\'{\i}a, 

106: Casilla 160-C, Concepci\'on, Chile; wgieren@astro-udec.udec.cl}

107: 

108: \and

109: 

110: \author{Grzegorz Pietrzy\'nski} \affil{Universidad de Concepci\'on, Departamento de Astronom\'{\i}a, 

111: Casilla 160-C, Concepci\'on, Chile;  pietrzyn@hubble.cfm.udec.cl}

112: 

113: \altaffiltext{1}{Based on VLT observations for ESO Large Programme 171.D-0004.}

114: 

115: \begin{abstract}

116: 

117: The quantitative analysis of low resolution spectra of A and B 

118: supergiants is used to determine a distance modulus of 24.99$\,\pm\,$0.10 mag 

119: (995$\,\pm\,$46 Kpc) to the Local Group galaxy WLM. The analysis yields 

120: stellar effective temperatures and gravities, which provide a distance through the 

121: Flux weighted Gravity--Luminosity Relationship ({\sc fglr}). Our distance is 0.07~mag 

122: larger than the most recent results based on Cepheids and the tip of the RGB. This difference is 

123: within the 1$\displaystyle\sigma$ overlap of the typical uncertainties quoted in these photometric 

124: investigations. In addition, non-LTE spectral synthesis of the rich metal line spectra  

125: (mostly iron, chromium and titanium) of the A supergiants is carried out, which allows the 

126: determination of  

127: stellar metallicities. An average metallicity of -0.87$\,\pm\,$0.06~dex with respect to solar

128: metallicity is found.

129: 

130: \end{abstract}

131: 

132: \keywords{galaxies: --- distances galaxies: abundances --- galaxies:

133:   individual (WLM) --- stars: early-type, supergiants}

134:  

135: %==========================================================================

136: 

137: \section{Introduction}\label{intro}

138: 

139: %%% Lee et al. 12+log(O/H) = 7.83 +/- 0.06

140: %%% Venn et al. Fe 7.13+/-0.22  (-.37) ^ O 8.45+/-0.05 (-.21) ^ Ti 4.60+/-0.21

141: %%%             (-.34) ^ Sc 2.48 +/- 0.09 (-.62) ^ Cr 5.27 +/-0.14 (-.42) 

142: %%% my mean value for Venn's results is -0.44 +/-.13 dex 

143: 

144: WLM is one of the faintest dwarf irregular galaxies ($M_{B} \cong -14$), located 

145: in an isolated part of the Local Group. Detailed photometric studies have shown that

146: it consists of a young population concentrated in a disk and an old extended 

147: metal poor halo \citep{ferraro1989,minniti1997,dolphin00,rejkuba2000,mcconnachie2005}. 

148: The color of the red giant branch of 

149: the old population indicates a metallicity of [Fe/H] = -1.45 dex\footnote{We 

150: use the common notation [X/Y] = log(X/Y) - log(X/Y)$_\odot$, with the solar

151: abundances given by \cite{grevesse98}, except for oxygen, for which we adopt the value from 

152: \cite{asplund2004}.} representing the 

153: end of the first star formation episode. On the other hand, the metallicity of 

154: the young population is somewhat ambiguous. While measurements from a number of

155: \hii~regions \citep{skillman1989,hodge1995,lee2005} yielded a low 

156: nebular oxygen abundance of [O/H]\,=\,-0.8\,dex, a detailed high resolution 

157: spectroscopic study of an A-type supergiant \citep{venn2003} obtained 

158: [O/H]\,=\,-0.2\,dex indicating a large discrepancy between 

159: stellar and nebular chemical composition. On the other hand, \citet{bresolin2006}

160: in their low resolution (5\,\AA) spectroscopic survey for supergiants in WLM 

161: studied three early B supergiants and found an average value of [O/H]\,=\,-0.8\,dex 

162: comparable with the \hii~regions.

163: 

164: The spectroscopic sample gathered in the survey by \citet{bresolin2006} also 

165: contained high signal-to-noise data of several late B and A supergiants 

166: (B5-A7) of luminosity class Ia and II. These objects with their rich spectra of

167: metal lines (mostly iron, titanium, chromium) are ideal 

168: for a further investigation of stellar metallicity. However, at the time of the

169: publication of this work the density of metal lines in the optical spectra 

170: together with the low spectral resolution did not allow for a determination of 

171: stellar parameters using the standard analysis techniques applied for the 

172: early-type B supergiants. Recently, this situation has changed.  

173: \citet[][hereafter K08]{kudritzki2008} in their study of the Sculptor spiral 

174: galaxy NGC\,300 at a distance of 1.9 Mpc developed a new technique to quantitatively 

175: analyze low resolution spectra of A supergiants with respect to stellar parameters 

176: and metallicity. This technique makes use of the Balmer jump and the Balmer lines to obtain 

177: effective temperature and gravity and determines metallicity from a 

178: $\chi^{2}$-minimization of observed and theoretical spectra in selected spectral windows. 

179: It can now be applied to the data set obtained by \citet{bresolin2006} and allows 

180: for a more comprehensive straightforward spectroscopic study of the metallicity

181: of the young stellar population in WLM.

182: 

183: The distance to WLM has been determined from photometric 

184: studies of the old stellar population using the tip of the red giant branch 

185: (TRGB), the horizontal branch (HB) and full color-magnitude diagrams, yielding  

186: distance moduli between 24.7 and 24.95~mag \citep[see][and references above]{rizzi2007}.

187: The most recent comprehensive multi-color survey for Cepheids by \citet{gieren2008}, including

188: J- and K-band photometry, found a distance modulus of 24.92~mag with a very small random error of 

189: 0.04~mag and a systematic error of 0.05~mag. These authors determined an average interstellar 

190: reddening E(B-V)=0.08~mag, significantly larger than the Galactic foreground 

191: reddening and, thus, relevant for the derived distance. Under such circumstances, an 

192: independent distance and reddening determination using the young stellar population is  

193: ideal for verifying photometrically based distances.

194: 

195: Such an independent distance determination can be provided through the 

196: quantitative spectral analysis of the B and A supergiants. \citet{kudritzki2003}

197: and K08 have shown that a tight correlation exists between the 

198: absolute bolometric magnitude and the flux weighted gravity $g/T_{eff}^{4}$.

199: This relationship is predicted by stellar evolution theory and  

200: allows distance determinations with a precision comparable to Cepheids.

201: 

202: In this paper, we will carry out a spectral analysis of the low resolution 

203: optical spectra of 8 late B and A supergiants (B5-A7) observed by 

204: \citet{bresolin2006} to determine stellar temperatures, gravities, luminosities, 

205: masses and metallicities. For the analysis we will use the basic concept 

206: introduced by K08, however, in a modified form. We will present  

207: a new numerical fit algorithm based on an empirical application of the Karhunen-Lo\`eve expansion

208: usually referred to as Principal Component Analysis, which 

209: allows for an automated analysis of a large number of objects using large 

210: comprehensive grids of model atmosphere spectra. We will then combine the 

211: results with those obtained by \citet{bresolin2006} for the early-type 

212: B supergiants and determine an independent distance using the flux-weighted 

213: gravity luminosity relationship, {\sc fglr}. This will be the first distance determination 

214: using this new distance determination method. 

215: 

216: The paper is organized as follows. After a brief description of the 

217: observations in \S\ref{sec_obs} we present the modified analysis method in 

218: \S\ref{sec_anal}. In \S\ref{sec_hires}, we test our method by comparing with the 

219: results obtained in a previous detailed high resolution study for one of our targets. 

220: The results of the analysis, i.e. the derived \Teff, $log~g$, metallicity,

221: E(B-V), radius, luminosity and mass, are given in \S\ref{sec_results}. The 

222: distance determination using the \fglr is carried out in \S\ref{sec_fglr} 

223: and \S\ref{sec_discussion} will present a discussion of all the results.

224: 

225: \section{Observations}\label{sec_obs}

226: 

227: The spectroscopic observations were obtained with the Focal Reducer and Low Dispersion 

228: Spectrograph 2 \citep[FORS2,][]{appenzeller1998} at the ESO Very Large Telescope in 

229: multi-object spectroscopy mode in one night of good seeing conditions (better than 0.7 arcsec) 

230: on 2003 July 28 as part of the Auracaria 

231: Project \citep{gieren2005}. 

232: The total exposure time is 4500s and the air mass during the observations was 

233: smaller than 1.07. The spectral resolution is approximately 5~\AA~and the 

234: spectral coverage extends over 2500~\AA~centered at 4500~\AA~for most of our 

235: targets. The spectra were also flux calibrated so that spectral energy 

236: distributions, in particular the Balmer jump, can be used to constrain the 

237: stellar parameters. The observational data set has been described by 

238: \citet{bresolin2006}. The paper also contains finding charts, coordinates, 

239: photometry \citep[V, I from the Las Campanas 1.3m telescope, see][]{pietrzynski2007}, 

240: radial velocities and 

241: spectral types. Of the 19 confirmed supergiants found with spectral types ranging 

242: from late O to G, 8 were of spectral type B5 to A7. The S/N per pixel for these 

243: objects is between 40 to 120, sufficient for our quantitative analysis. This  

244: sample listed in Table~\ref{tab_objects} and selected for this work. The target 

245: designation follows the nomenclature in \citet{bresolin2006}. Note that 

246: we consider only stars of their A set because of the significantly better S/N.

247: 

248: Along with the broad band photometry in the aforementioned reference, we also 

249: use  B-, V-, R- and I-band data published by \citet{massey2007} to constrain 

250: the interstellar reddening E(B-V), as well as J- and K-band 

251: photometry from \citet{gieren2008}. The IR photometry, available only for some

252: stars, is compiled in Table~\ref{tab_IR}.

253: 

254: Prior to the quantitative spectral analysis, we carefully explore the dataset 

255: available for each star, to identify

256: spectral regions showing signs of contamination due to imperfect sky subtraction,

257: nearby cosmic rays, and similar other observational effects. These regions are 

258: masked out and not used in the analysis. 

259: 

260: \section{Quantitative spectral analysis \label{sec_anal}}

261: 

262: As explained in K08 the principal difficulty in the analysis of low resolution 

263: spectra of A supergiants lies in the simultaneous determination of effective 

264: temperature and metallicity. The classic method based on the use of ionization 

265: equilibria does not work, since the required lines from the neutral species 

266: (\ion{Mg}{1}, \ion{Fe}{1}, \ldots) are in general very weak and 

267: disappear at low resolution within noise and the blends of spectral lines. 

268: While one could use the information from the stronger lines, which define 

269: the spectral type, and a calibration of spectral type with effective 

270: temperature, such a relationship is metallicity dependent, which requires 

271: the simultaneous and independent determination of metallicity.

272: 

273: K08 were able to solve this problem by using the Balmer jump as an 

274: independent temperature indicator in addition to the Balmer lines, which can 

275: be used as a measure of gravity, and to the rich metal line spectrum, which 

276: yielded the metallicity through a $\chi^2$-minimization comparing 

277: selected windows of the observed spectra with very sophisticated non-LTE line 

278: formation calculations.

279: 

280: The methodology employed in the present work follows closely the ideas 

281: presented by K08, however with some significant modifications. While K08 

282: constructed fit diagrams of the Balmer jump and the Balmer lines in the 

283: $T_{eff}$--$log~g$ plane through ``by eye'' fits of the observed line 

284: profiles and the spectral energy distribution (SED) and then determined the 

285: metallicity for the effective 

286: temperature and gravity at the intersection of the two fit curves. Here we have 

287: developed a completely automated numerical method, which finds the best fit of 

288: the model atmosphere synthetic spectra to the observed spectra. The advantages 

289: of this new method are obvious. It provides a more quantitative and objective 

290: way to obtain the fit and the automated procedure allows a quantitative analysis  

291: of a large number of spectra, which in the era of efficient multi-object 

292: spectrograph facilities is a very important aspect. We will describe the method in the 

293: subsections below. 

294: 

295: \subsection{Brief description of the model grid\label{grid}}

296: 

297: The basis for the quantitative spectral analysis is the same comprehensive 

298: grid of line blanketed LTE model atmospheres and very detailed non-LTE line formation 

299: calculations used by K08. For a detailed description of the physics of the model

300: atmosphere and line formation calculations see \citet{przybilla2006}.

301: 

302: Our grid of models covers a range of $\displaystyle 8300 \le T_{eff} \le 15000$~K  

303: (with steps of 250~K and 500~K below and above 10$^4$~K, respectively) and 

304: $\displaystyle 0.75 \le log~g \le 2.60$ (with steps of 0.05~dex) in effective temperature and 

305: gravity with the following metallicities at each grid point, 

306: [Z] = $\log\left(\mathrm{Z/Z}\right)_{\odot}$: -1.30, -1.00, -0.85, -0.70, -0.60, -0.50,

307:  -0.40, -0.30, -0.15, 0.00, 0.15, 0.30. The quantity Z/Z$_{\odot}$ is the metallicity 

308: relative to the Sun. The solar abundances were taken from \citet{grevesse98},

309: except for oxygen, which is from \citet{asplund2004}. Based on trend in the literature, a 

310: microturbulence of 8 \kms~is adopted for the low gravity models gradually changing to 4 \kms~at 

311: higher gravity. For further details we refer to K08. 

312: %A microturbulence of 8 \kms~is adopted for the low gravity models gradually

313: %changing to 4 \kms~at higher gravity, in agreement with the results obtained 

314: %from high resolution spectroscopy. For further details we refer to K08. 

315: 

316: This grid was primarily designed for the analysis of Ia and Ib luminosity

317: class objects. Several of the WLM stars selected for the present work were classified by

318: \citet{bresolin2006} as luminosity class II. To consider these objects, we enlarged 

319: the grid with two new

320: effective temperatures, 8100 and 7900\,K, and extended to higher gravities all the models

321: with $\displaystyle T_{eff}\le 10^4$~K ($log~g \le 2.75$~dex).  

322: 

323: \subsection{General methodology}

324: 

325: The goal of the analysis is to determine for each star a set of four parameters 

326: $\{T_{eff}$, logg, [Z] and E(B-V)$\}$, for which the corresponding synthetic model spectrum 

327: best matches the observations. We have three data sets available: 

328: 1) normalized and rectified spectra, which will give line profile information 

329: for the Balmer and metal lines; 2) flux calibrated spectra providing information 

330: about the Balmer jump, and 3) broad band photometry which can be used for the 

331: construction of the observed long wavelength SED.

332: 

333: K08 have shown in detail how the theoretical spectral line profiles, the SED and 

334: the Balmer jump depend on temperature, gravity and metallicity. Generally speaking, 

335: the Balmer lines depend mostly on gravity, but show also a significant temperature 

336: dependence, whereas the Balmer jump depends mostly on temperature, but also on 

337: gravity. The dependence on metallicity of the Balmer lines and the Balmer jump is 

338: very weak. %%Thus, there are two curves of $(T_{eff},log~g)$ pairs, almost 

339: %%independent of metallicity, along which the observed Balmer lines and the Balmer 

340: %%jump will be reproduced by the models and the intersection of these two curves 

341: Using these properties, two different curves can be defined in the $T_{eff}$--$log~g$

342: plane, one being the locus of the models that reproduce the Balmer lines when the temperature 

343: is adopted, and, conversely, another tracing the locus of the models that reproduce the 

344: Balmer jump once the gravity is assumed. The intersection of these two curves  

345: yields the gravity and the temperature of the star observed. The classic method 

346: used by K08 is to construct these curves through a by-eye fit of the models to the 

347: observed data. In our new approach we have decided to use an automated numerical 

348: fit of the model spectra to the observed data.

349: 

350: a) Our algorithm is iterative and begins with the fit of the Balmer lines. We start 

351: with a first value of $T_{eff}$ and [Z] and try to find the model gravity $log~g$ 

352: which best matches the shape of the observed Balmer profiles. For this purpose, 

353: we carry out a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) of the normalized model spectra 

354: in spectral windows around the Balmer lines. For a fixed $T_{eff}$ and [Z] we 

355: have n models with different gravities at each grid point (n varies from 20 to 32 

356: depending on the grid point), each of them providing a set of normalized flux 

357: values S$_{j}(\lambda)$ (where the index j runs over the n models) around a selected 

358: Balmer line. These model flux values define a matrix $\mathbf{A}$ (with elements 

359: A$_{ij}\,=\,$S$_{j}(\lambda)$, where i labels the wavelength points and j runs over the 

360: models with different $log~g$). Following the concept of PCA, we determine the 

361: eigenvalues and the eigenvectors of the covariance matrix 

362: $\mathrm{cov}\!\left(\mathbf{A}\right)$ \citep{deeming1964,whitney1983} and 

363: %% in the sense of a Karhunen-Lo\`eve transform we 

364: identify the largest eigenvalue and its corresponding eigenvector as the 

365: principal component associated with the parameter $log~g$. Fig.~\ref{fig_proj_balmer} 

366: shows the typical eigenvectors $\mathbf{v}(\lambda)$ for three Balmer lines. 

367: As a consistency test we check that the cumulative percentage variance associated with this 

368: principal component is always above 95\% in all cases, meaning that 

369: more than 95\% of the information in the input data can be described by the principal 

370: component alone.

371: 

372: The projection of the model flux matrix $\mathbf{A}$ onto the eigenvector $\mathbf{v}$ 

373: allows us to define a relationship between the $log~g$ values of the models

374: and their projections $\displaystyle\Phi(log~g)$, for each Balmer line

375: \[\displaystyle \sum_{\lambda}\mathrm{S}_{j}\left(\lambda\right)\,v\left(\lambda\right)\,=\,\Phi_{j}\,=\,\Phi\left(log~g\right) \]

376: which are also shown in Fig.~\ref{fig_proj_balmer}. Projecting the observed 

377: normalized flux values $F_\lambda$  in each Balmer line spectral window 

378: onto the corresponding eigenvector yields an observed value, which can then be 

379: compared to $\Phi(log~g)$ to find the best gravity $log~g$ at the selected values 

380: of $T_{eff}$ and [Z]. Comparing the values obtained from different Balmer lines 

381: (we usually use H$_{10}$ to H$_\beta$) allows us to assign a mean value and an 

382: uncertainty $\omega$ to this determination of the best fitting gravity.

383: 

384: b) Adopting this pair of $\left(T_{eff},\,log~g\right)$ we can now determine a new metallicity by defining 

385: spectral windows with many metal lines. Fig.~\ref{fig_proj_met} shows a typical example 

386: of different spectral windows and their corresponding PCA eigenvectors, this time determined 

387: with respect to metallicity [Z]. The projections $\Phi([Z])$ and the 

388: observed value are also shown. Using different spectral windows we can again assign 

389: an average value of [Z] and an uncertainty $\omega$. For this new [Z] we iterate the 

390: determination of $log~g$, but because of the weak dependence of the Balmer lines on 

391: metallicity changes are usually small.

392: 

393: c) In the previous steps we used Balmer and metal line profiles to obtain $log~g$ 

394: and [Z] (and their corresponding uncertainties) at a selected value of $T_{eff}$. Now 

395: we adopt these new values of $log~g$ 

396: and [Z] and use the observed SED around the Balmer jump to obtain a new value of $T_{eff}$. 

397: This is again done by PCA (but see below) as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig_proj_jump}. The model atmosphere 

398: SED corresponding to this $T_{eff}$, $log~g$ and [Z] is used to determine the reddening E(B-V) from a comparison 

399: ($\chi^2$-minimization) with the observed broad band photometry, adopting the extinction law by 

400: \citet{cardelli1989}, as well as $\displaystyle R_v=A_V/E(B-V)=3.1$.

401: Since the region used to determine $T_{eff}$ could be affected by this extinction, we alternatively iterate

402: the values of $T_{eff}$ and E(B-V) until convergence in both is reached, defining the best $T_{eff}$ and the best

403: E(B-V). Unlike the cases of surface gravity and metallicity, the temperature is determined from

404: a single feature, the Balmer jump. The uncertainty in $T_{eff}$ is thus given by our ability to 

405: effectively measure the Balmer jump, and not from temperature values derived from different spectral 

406: windows. In 

407: order to estimate this uncertainty, we proceed in the following way. Two values of the temperature are

408: computed simultaneously, by using two different definitions of the Balmer

409: jump (see Fig.~\ref{fig_proj_jump}). The first one (Fig.~\ref{fig_proj_jump}d) corresponds to the 

410: value derived from the application of the PCA base vector (shown in Fig.~\ref{fig_proj_jump}c), while 

411: the second value (Fig.~\ref{fig_proj_jump}b) is based on the Balmer jump index $D_B$ introduced by K08, 

412: $\displaystyle D_{B}=\langle\log(F_{\lambda}^{long})\rangle-\langle\log(F_{\lambda}^{short})\rangle$, where  

413: \[\begin{array}{l}

414: %%D_{B}=\langle\log(F_{\lambda}^{long})\rangle-\langle\log(F_{\lambda}^{short})\rangle\mathrm{, with} \\ 

415: \langle\log(F_{\lambda}^{short})\rangle=\lbrace\sum_{i=1}^{N}\log(F_{\lambda_{i}})\rbrace/N,~3585\bb\le\lambda_{i}\le3627\bb\quad\mathrm{,and}\\ 

416: \langle\log(F_{\lambda}^{long})\rangle=\lbrace\log F_{3782\bb}+\log F_{3814\bb}+\log F_{3847\bb}+\log F_{3876\bb}\rbrace/4  \nonumber

417: \end{array}\]

418: In the case of $\displaystyle F_{\lambda}^{short}$, $N$ is the number of wavelength points considered for the mean. Note 

419: that in both cases, we are considering all the models in the grid for a given pair $\displaystyle\left(log~g,[Z]\right)$, as 

420: previously explained. In an ideal case, with infinite S/N, both values would be 

421: exactly the same. Once noise is present, there is a difference between both temperatures, that reflects how 

422: precisely the Balmer jump can be measured, defining therefore the uncertainty in temperature, 

423: $\displaystyle\Delta T_{eff}$.

424: 

425: 

426: Apart from this $\Delta T_{eff}$, the difference between the initially assumed temperature

427: and the final derived value defines an error $\delta$, which can be assigned to 

428: the set of parameters $\displaystyle\{T_{eff}, log~g, [Z], E\left(B-V\right)\}$. This $\delta$ can 

429: be interpreted as the distance between the guess temperature and the true $T_{eff}$, because of the

430: weak dependence of the Balmer jump on gravity and metallicity.\\

431: 

432: We repeat the whole procedure (a, b, c) for different initial values of $T_{eff}$ and, 

433: thus, obtain a set of parameters 

434: $\pi_i\,=\,\{T_{eff}, log~g, [Z], \mathrm{E}\left(\mathrm{B-V}\right)\}_{i}$ 

435: together with their corresponding weights {$(\delta_{i}, \omega_{i})$}. The final solution  

436: $\Pi$ = $\{T_{eff}$, logg, [Z] and E(B-V)$\}$ is then obtained as a weighted mean  

437: 

438: \[ \Pi \,=\,\frac{\sum_{i}\,1/\delta^2_i\,\cdot\,1/\omega^2_i\,\cdot\,\pi_i}

439: {\sum_{j}\,1/\delta^2_j\,\cdot\,1/\omega^2_j} \]

440: where the indexes $i,j$ run over all the individual solutions for the corresponding parameter ($T_{eff}$, logg, 

441: [Z] or E(B-V)). In a similar way, a formal error (uncertainty) is obtained from 

442: 

443: \[ (\Delta\:\Pi)^2 \,=\,\frac{\sum_{i}\,1/\delta^2_i\,\cdot\,1/\omega^2_i\,\cdot\,(\pi_i - \Pi)^2}

444: {\sum_{j}\,1/\delta^2_j\,\cdot\,1/\omega^2_j} \] 

445: 

446: 

447: This analysis method can only be applied in those cases for which the Balmer jump region 

448: is observed. In some instances, due to the location of the star in the observed field and its spectrum on the 

449: detector, this area is not observed, and

450: we have to rely on the normalized spectrum to obtain information about the effective temperature. In this situation

451: as already discussed by K08, the relative strength of lines from different species can be used. If the star

452: is hot enough to show \ion{He}{1} lines (earlier than around A0), these can be used to constrain the temperature. 

453: The accuracy is usually comparable to that when the Balmer jump is used. If 

454: the star is cool enough (later than B9), the relative behavior of different metal lines (for example \ion{Ti}{2} versus 

455: \ion{Fe}{2} lines, or the strength of the Fe-Mg blend located at $\sim\,$5150~\AA) could be used. To find the temperature, 

456: we then proceed in a similar way, defining several spectral windows in which these metal or helium lines are present, 

457: to construct the PCA eigenvectors (from the normalized synthetic spectra), but now with respect to temperature. There 

458: is an underlying assumption, though, when using this method: the adopted metallicity pattern. The implications of our adopted 

459: solar abundance pattern are discussed in Sect \ref{sect_micro}. Temperatures determined by this method have a

460: somewhat larger uncertainty, related to the accuracy with which the metallicity can be determined.

461: 

462: 

463: Metallicity and microturbulence are closely related with respect to the 

464: values derived from any analysis. As discussed by K08, it is difficult to constraint microturbulence  

465: at such low spectral resolution, since lines from a given species, with very different strengths, are 

466: required. In consequence, as explained in \S\ref{grid}, for each object, the microturbulence is given by

467: the final ($T_{eff}$,$log~g$) pair. We will discuss in \S \ref{sect_micro} the possible effects of the 

468: adopted relationship between the microturbulence and the ($T_{eff}$,$log~g$) values.

469: 

470: 

471: \subsubsection{Uncertainties}

472: 

473: The formal accuracy of the final solution depends primarily on the signal-to-noise ratio. Our experience shows

474: that, for the low spectral resolution considered in this work, a minimum S/N$\sim$50 is required for the metallicity 

475: determination in order to keep the uncertainties in a tolerable range (see next section), while T$_\mathrm{eff}$ and 

476: $log~g$ determinations, both based on stronger features (the Balmer jump and the Balmer lines) can still be carried 

477: out at much lower, S/N$\sim$15.

478: 

479: The formal errors arising from the application of our algorithm, as previously defined, are rather small. Typically, 

480: surface gravity and metallicity can be constrained to better than 0.05~dex, while the effective temperature 

481: uncertainty results in a few K. To define more meaningful errors, we also consider the 

482: uncertainties derived for the model in the grid with parameters closest  

483: to the final solution, i.e., we use the $\omega$ values (defined above) obtained for the set 

484: $\displaystyle\{T_{eff}, log~g, [Z]\}$ closest to the final solution. These provide an idea about how well the 

485: observations are reproduced by a single model.\\ 

486: 

487: The final errors quoted are obtained as a quadratic combination of these two sets of 

488: uncertainties. Typical values for these final errors result in $\sim$\,2--5\% in temperature, 

489: $\sim$\,0.1--0.2\,dex in surface gravity and $\sim$\,0.2--0.3\,dex in metallicity. As an example, 

490: Fig.~\ref{fig_classic_fit} shows the solution obtained for one of the stars in the sample, A14. 

491: The small box encloses the solution with the formal errors in the $T_{eff}$--logg plane. As can be seen 

492: this solution area agrees with the intersection of the conventional fit curves for the Balmer jump and

493: the Balmer lines, with the difference of the solutions well below the resolution limit of both methods. 

494: The final adopted errors are represented by the dashed box.

495: 

496: With regard to the uncertainties in the flux weighted gravity, it must be noted that the errors in $log~g$ and

497: $T_{eff}$ are correlated (see Fig.~\ref{fig_classic_fit}), which reduces the uncertainties in $log~g_\mathrm{F}$ in most cases. The reader is referred

498: to K08 for a detailed discussion on this topic.

499: 

500: \subsubsection{Goodness-of-fit assessment}

501: 

502: With the final set of parameters known for each star, it is useful to evaluate the fitness 

503: of each final solution, with the goal 

504: of identifying problems not detected in the analysis. Given a pair observation--final model 

505: $\displaystyle\left(O_\lambda,M_\lambda\right)$, we define the residuals of a spectral window

506: with $\displaystyle n_i$ wavelength points as  % each parameter individually by computing the relative residuals

507: \[\displaystyle r_i\left(M_\lambda,O_\lambda\right)=\frac{1}{n_i}\left[\sum_{j=1}^{n_p}\left(\frac{O_j-M_j}{M_j}\right)^2\right]^{1/2}\]

508: The fitness $\displaystyle R\left(\Pi\right)$ of a parameter $\Pi$ is given by the sum of these 

509: relative residuals $\displaystyle r_i$ over all the spectral windows 

510: considered in the determination of the corresponding parameter (as described above), weighted by 

511: the (normalized) S/N of each individual window 

512: \[R\left(\Pi\right)\:=\:\sum_{i=1}^{n_w}{r_i \hat{s_i} }\qquad \mathrm{ , with }\qquad \hat{s_i}=\frac{\mathrm{S/N}_i}{\sum_{k}{\mathrm{S/N}_k}} \]

513: In the case of the surface gravity and metallicity, 

514: the normalized spectra are used to calculate the fitness. For the effective temperature, the flux 

515: calibrated data and the synthetic SEDs are considered to evaluate the fitness when the Balmer jump 

516: is observed. If it is not observed the normalized spectra are used. 

517: 

518: Alternatively, we could define the fitness for each window as 

519: \[\displaystyle q_i\left(M_\lambda,O_\lambda\right)=\frac{1}{n_i}\sum_{j=1}^{n_p}\left(\frac{\log(O_j/M_j)}{\log(1+\epsilon)}\right)\]

520: where $\displaystyle\epsilon$ is the error allowed in the fitting (tolerance), defined as 

521: $\displaystyle\epsilon=\mathrm{S/N}^{-1}$. The global 

522: fitness, for each parameter individually, is given by the sum over all the windows, in this case without weighting by the S/N

523: since its effect is already accounted for with the tolerance. This second fitness evaluator has the

524: advantage of containing additional information in its sign, with a positive/negative value reflecting whether the 

525: corresponding parameter is over or under-estimated. This fitness definition is particularly useful to detect

526: variations in the goodness-of-fit from star to star. \\

527: 

528: We define the global fitness of the model with respect to the observation, 

529: $\displaystyle R\left(M_\lambda,O_\lambda\right)$, as the sum of the 

530: individual fitness values of each parameter, $\displaystyle R\left(\Pi\right)\!$. From the definitions, it is 

531: clear that the smaller 

532: the absolute value, the fitter the model. Fitness values corresponding to the final solutions are presented 

533: in Table~\ref{tab_fitness}, and they will be used in the following sections to discuss the results. 

534: 

535: 

536: \subsection{Consistency tests}

537: 

538: We performed a number of simple tests to check the analysis algorithm. In all the following cases, we emulated the

539: observed spectra by degrading the models to a resolution of 5~\AA~(FWHM) and re-sampling them to 

540: 1.32 \AA~(the spectral resolution and dispersion provided by FORS2 when equipped with the 600B grism). Note that 

541: these tests are meant to check our ability to reproduce known input parameters. 

542: 

543: First, we verified that, for any given model in the grid, we were able to recover almost exactly its parameters. In 

544: a second step, we created a number of models with parameters within the limits of the grid, but without any 

545: corresponding model in the grid. Three different sets of $\displaystyle T_{eff}$--logg,

546: representatives of a late B, an early A and a mid A supergiants were considered, for four different metallicities.

547: In all cases, we were able to recover the parameters to better than 1\% in effective temperature (based on the 

548: Balmer jump), 0.02~dex in surface gravity and 0.03~dex in metallicity. These two tests were 

549: carried out without considering noise, since they were intended to probe the ability 

550: of our algorithm to recover known parameters, without any influence from external sources.

551: 

552: A third set of tests was performed to check the effect of noise on the determination of metallicity, and hence to

553: evaluate the minimum S/N required for (meaningful) metallicity determinations. We selected a number of 

554: models in the

555: grid representative again of the different spectral groups, degraded them to different S/N (100, 50, 30 

556: and 15) and carried out a metallicity analysis. For each model and 

557: each S/N value, we did 100 independent trials. The results for the early A-type case are presented in Fig. 

558: \ref{fig_sigma_met} (the results are very similar for all the other $T_{eff}$--logg pairs considered). The first

559: two rows correspond to $\left[\mathrm{Z}\right]=0.00$~dex, while the other two rows are for 

560: $\left[\mathrm{Z}\right]=-0.85$~dex. Each single plot displays the relative frequency of occurrence 

561: versus the difference between the input and recovered metallicities, presenting also the sigma of the distribution. 

562: Since this sigma only describes the dispersion

563: introduced by the noise, the global uncertainty obtained in a generic analysis would be larger, once

564: the effects of the uncertainties in the other parameters (temperature and gravity) are accounted for. As a general

565: recipe, a maximum $\sigma_{S/N}\sim0.10$ dex at a fixed pair of $T_{eff}$ and $log g$ would be required in order to 

566: have a final global uncertainty $\sigma\sim0.20$ dex. 

567: 

568: Clearly, the minimum S/N depends on the metallicity: the higher the $\left[\mathrm{Z}\right]$, the stronger 

569: the lines, hence the lower the S/N required to detect them. At the same time, it also depends to some extent

570: on the spectral type; for a given metallicity, cool mid A-types (A1 to A3) present stronger

571: metal features 

572: (as well as a higher line density) than late B-/early A-types (B5 to A0). From Fig. \ref{fig_sigma_met}, it is

573: possible to identify a minimum S/N$\sim$50, in particular at low metallicities, to meet the requirement of a

574: global metallicity uncertainty around 0.2\,dex.    

575: 

576: 

577: \subsection{Dependence of the results on hidden parameters\label{sect_micro}}

578: 

579: In order to keep the task of creating such a huge model grid manageable, only three parameters (the most

580: important ones, $T_{eff}$, $log g$ and [Z]) are explored so far. In the following we want to discuss some of the

581: possible implications regarding how the models are calculated.

582: 

583: As previously stated, metallicity and microturbulence are coupled in any analysis. Aimed at exploring 

584: the effect that our assumption about microturbulence $\xi$ (given for a pair $T_{eff}$-logg) 

585: could have on the results, we

586: calculated a small set of models with different values of $\xi$ (but the same $T_{eff}$, $log g$, [Z]  

587: considered for the grid), and analyzed them in the same manner as the observations. For a variation of 

588: $\xi$ of $\pm$2~\kms (which is the typical dispersion obtained in high resolution analyses of

589: these type of objects, for a given luminosity class) we found an error of less than 1\%, 0.01 dex and

590: 0.07 dex for effective temperature, surface gravity and metallicity, respectively. As expected, both $T_{eff}$ 

591: and logg are unaffected by a change in microturbulence, and the larger effect is produced in the 

592: metallicity. Here we want to stress again that we are not dealing with individual lines, which certainly 

593: could present large variations with $\xi$ (like for example \ion{Mg}{2} 4481~\AA), but with all the spectral 

594: lines at once (or with as many of them as possible); the use of the whole spectrum weights the effect of the

595: turbulence differently, reducing its impact on the derived global metallicity. This is, on the other hand, a warning

596: sign for the use of small sections of the spectrum (at low resolution) to

597: determine individual elemental abundances, which would be seriously hampered by the unknown $\xi$. 

598: 

599: 

600: We proceeded in a similar way in order to evaluate the impact of our assumption of a solar 

601: abundance pattern. We calculated a set of models for which the ratio of the $\alpha$-elements to Fe-group 

602: elements 

603: relative to the solar reference vary, with [$\alpha$/Fe] = $\pm\,$0.15, $\pm\,$0.30 dex (note that by 

604: definition, the value used in the grid is [$\alpha$/Fe] = 0.0 dex). The maximum change in effective 

605: temperature (based on the Balmer jump) and surface gravity due to these changes in relative abundances 

606: is less than 1\% and 0.01\,dex~respectively. The difference goes up to 6\% in temperature when using the

607: normalized spectrum instead of the Balmer jump. This result is not surprising since in this case, $T_{eff}$ is

608: based on the relative strength of different species, in particular of \ion{Ti}{2} to \ion{Fe}{2} lines, 

609: which depends on the relative abundances as well as on the temperature. As a byproduct, this exploratory 

610: study allowed us to refine the limits for some of the spectral windows considered in the determination 

611: of metallicities, allowing 

612: also to identify features that are produced mainly by Fe-group elements (Fe, Ni, Cr, \ldots) and, 

613: conversely, 

614: features produced by $\alpha$-elements (in particular Ti). This will be used in the future to evaluate the

615: possibility of extracting information from the spectra not only for the global metallicity but also for the

616: relative abundances of some prominent species. 

617: 

618: 

619: \subsection{Comments on individual stars \label{sect_stars}}

620: 

621: In this section we present a brief discussion of the analysis of some of the targets. 

622: 

623: \begin{itemize}

624: 

625: %\item A2: along with A4, this is one of the faintest stars considered. Our analysis indicates that 

626: %the star is most likely outside of the limits of our grid of models. Although we could put

627: %an upper limit to its parameters, we will not consider this star in the following sections.

628: 

629: \item A4: the Balmer jump region was not observed for this star, therefore we have to use the normalized spectrum

630: to estimate $T_{eff}$ from metal lines (the star is too cool to present He lines). In this situation, $T_{eff}$ is coupled to

631: [Z], the well know problem of the spectral type--metallicity degeneracy. Due to the combination of the low

632: metallicity and the relatively low S/N, the errors in [Z] and $T_{eff}$ are relatively large.

633: 

634: \item A5 and A17: the Balmer jump is missing for both stars. Fortunately, they are hot enough to present 

635: \ion{He}{1} lines, and can be used to constraint $T_{eff}$. Note that both stars have S/N above 50, which

636: greatly improves the situation with respect to the two previous cases.   

637: 

638: \item A6: the analysis of this star is problematic. While the determination of \Teff~and $log~g$ using the Balmer jump and the Balmer lines

639: is straightforward and results in fitness values similar as for the other stars, the determination of [Z] is not. The metallicity is not

640: well defined, as is indicated by the high values of $\displaystyle R\left([Z]\right)$ and 

641: $\displaystyle Q\left([Z]\right)$ compared to the

642: other stars. Moreover, the high value of [Z]=-0.15~dex is puzzling. We note that the spectral type found by 

643: \citet{bresolin2006} based on the relative strength of \ion{Ca}{2} H and K lines is A7, suggesting a significantly cooler temperature than the one obtained from the Balmer

644: jump. While there are other examples of A supergiants where the \ion{Ca}{2} related spectral types do not match \Teff~(see discussion of

645: star A16) mostly because of the contribution by interstellar lines (note that E(B-V) of A6 is 0.29~mag), we have tried to obtain a spectral

646: fit at cooler temperatures ($T_{eff}=8100$~K, $log~g=1.50$~dex) with a metallicity [Z]=-0.7~dex more in line with the other stars. At these 

647: parameters, the Balmer lines are reproduced well, but the fit of the Balmer jump is unacceptable as indicated by the fitness values in

648: Table~\ref{tab_fitness}. In addition, the fitnesses $R\left([Z]\right)$ and $Q\left([Z]\right)$ are only marginally improved and still

649: significantly worse than the fits for the other stars. The value for E(B-V) at this cool temperature is 0.27~mag, only slightly 

650: lower than before. 

651: 

652: The problem described above might be caused by stellar multiplicity. We have tried to emulate the observables (Balmer jump, normalized spectrum and broad band photometry) 

653: by combining two models, one hot to reproduce the Balmer jump and one cool to produce the rich metal spectrum and the Balmer lines. 

654: However, it has been impossible to find a combination of models to fit everything. Also, the star does not show signs of companions 

655: in archival WFPC2/HST images. Even more puzzling is the fact that all the different photometric measurements considered, from B- to 

656: K-band (including WFPC2/HST photometry in filters F555W and F814W taken from \citealt{holtzman2006}) are satisfactorily reproduced 

657: with a single model solution, invoking high reddening. 

658: 

659: 

660: Another possibility is that we are dealing with a completely different type of star with just the photometric and (partial) spectroscopic

661: appearance of an A supergiant. The only solution that comes to our mind is a low mass star, for instance in post-RGB or post-AGB phase, in

662: the Galaxy. \citet{venn2003} have already discussed this possibility and found that this is rather unlikely. Indeed, if we assume the

663: typical mass of 0.5~M$_\odot$ for these objects, then with $log~g=1.95$~dex and $T_{eff}=8750$~K, we obtain $log~L/L_\odot=2.9$ or

664: $M_\mathrm{bol}=-2.5$~mag, with which, an apparent magnitude of $m_\mathrm{bol}=18.9$~mag would put the object at a distance of 190 Kpc,

665: certainly outside the Galaxy. We also note that A6 has a radial velocity typical for a WLM member \citep{bresolin2006}. 

666: 

667: At this point, we consider the metallicity of A6 obtained in our analysis as unreliable. We will include the object in our discussion of the

668: \fglr and of interstellar reddening, but will regard it uncertain. 

669: 

670: %% model flux is 0.038117684 d-8 %% 

671: %% V_0 = 19.82 - 3.1d*0.26 = 19.014

672: 

673: %

674: %   distance to the object from AGB stellar tracks

675: %   from Mendez et al. 1988

676: %

677: %  d^2(pc) = 3.82d-11 (M/M_sun) (F_5480 / erg/cm2/s/cm) 10^(0.4v_0) / (g /cm/s) 

678: %

679: %  v_0 = v - 2.175 c_opt, with A_v ~ 2.16 c_opt  ; c_opt is logar. extinction from Hbeta

680: %

681: %

682: 

683: %%\item A12: the star, a late B-type supergiant, is located in the South end of the galaxy. No particular remark concerning 

684: %%its analysis is required.

685: 

686: \item A14: this star has been previously studied by \citet{venn2003}, to which these authors referred

687: as WLM-15. In their analysis, \citet{venn2003} found a significant discrepancy between the oxygen

688: abundance of the star and the abundances obtained from \ion{H}{2} regions. We compare our results with those of 

689: \citet{venn2003}

690: in the following section. Unfortunately, our wavelength coverage does not include O lines, therefore it is 

691: not possible to carry out an independent analysis of the oxygen abundance.

692: 

693: \item A16: the spectral type classification by \citet{bresolin2006}, based on the \ion{Ca}{2} lines, is not consistent 

694: with the spectrum, nor with the results of the analysis (see below). There is at least another 

695: well known case for which this also happens. The Galactic star HD\,12953, the standard A1\,Ia in the MK system, would be

696: classified as an A3 based on the strength of its \ion{Ca}{2} lines, as already discussed by \citet{evans2003}. 

697: Unlike the case of A6, a completely consistent solution can be found. 

698: 

699: %%\item B11 and B14: both stars belong to the second set of stars, observed under worse sky conditions. In particular, the S/N is

700: %%too low to allow a detailed metallicity analysis. Nevertheless, temperatures and gravities can be determined fairly

701: %%accurately. As discussed by K08, both the Balmer lines and the Balmer jump do not depend on metallicity.

702: 

703: \end{itemize}

704:  

705: \section{Comparison with high resolution spectroscopy \label{sec_hires}}

706: 

707: One of the stars in our sample, A14, was previously studied by \citet[][hereafter V03]{venn2003}. These authors 

708: obtained a high 

709: resolution optical spectrum with UVES at the VLT (R$\sim$32000), and subsequently analyzed it using model 

710: atmosphere techniques similar to the ones employed here. This offers the possibility of a comparison with our low resolution work.

711: 

712: For the fundamental parameters, $T_{eff}$ and logg, V03 obtained 8300$\,\pm\,$200 K and 1.60$\,\pm\,$0.10 dex, while our solution is

713: 8270$\,\pm\,$145 K and 1.60$\,\pm\,$0.12 dex. The agreement is very good. Worth noticing is the fact that the effective temperature of

714: V03 is based on the Mg ionization equilibrium, while ours is based on the Balmer jump. 

715: With respect to the chemical abundances, the high resolution work is far superior in the sense that it can provide 

716: individual elemental abundances,

717: while we derive a global metallicity. In order to compare with our result, we used V03's individual abundances of Fe, Ti, Sc and

718: Cr (and our solar references) and calculated a mean [Z] value of -0.44$\,\pm\,$0.13~dex (the 

719: latter number is the standard deviation of this weighted mean). Note that neither O nor 

720: N lines available to V03 are covered in our observed spectral range, thus we decided not to include them to compute 

721: [Z]. Within the uncertainties, this value is in good agreement with our derived value of -0.50$\,\pm\,$0.19~dex. In 

722: fact, this good concordance can be seen in Fig. \ref{fig_highres}, were we 

723: show the UVES spectrum of A14 and a model with the parameters resulting from our low resolution analysis,  

724: convolved with the appropriate UVES instrumental profile and rotational velocity.  

725: 

726: While the comparison can only be done for one star, the close agreement found is certainly very encouraging, in particular

727: given the relatively low metallicity of the object. This agreement is also 

728: in consonance with the result presented by \citet{bresolin2006} for the early B-type supergiant A9 in the same galaxy. 

729: 

730: \section{Results \label{sec_results}}

731: 

732: The stellar parameters obtained in our work are summarized in Table~\ref{tab_parameters}. In the following we discuss metallicity,

733: interstellar extinction and stellar parameters. 

734: 

735: \subsection{Metallicities}

736: 

737: The metallicity of the 6 BA stars in our sample range (excluding A6) from $\left[\mathrm{Z}\right]=-0.5$ 

738: to $-1.0$~dex. The weighted mean metallicity, is $\left[\mathrm{Z}\right]=-0.87\,\pm\,0.06$~dex, where the 

739: uncertainty is given by the standard deviation of the sample. This value compares well with the results of 

740: \citet{bresolin2006}, based on the $\alpha$-element content of three early B-type supergiants, with weighted 

741: mean of 

742: $\left[\mathrm{O/H}\right]=-0.86\,\pm\,0.07$ dex. It also agrees with the oxygen abundances obtained from \ion{H}{2}~regions 

743: \citep[][]{lee2005}. This 

744: agreement indicates that WLM's young stellar population while metal poor exhibits an abundance pattern very similar

745: to the Sun (at least with respect to the most relevant species, like O, Fe or Ti). 

746: 

747: It seems that A14's metallicity is an outlier, being 0.26\,dex above the mean, which is 

748: a bit larger than the individual uncertainties we are claiming in our analyses. 

749: As discussed above, our low resolution result is consistent with the high resolution analysis by 

750: \citet{venn2003}. The difference with respect to the rest of our sample,

751: along with the abnormally high oxygen abundance derived by \citet{venn2003}

752: could indicate that the star has a peculiar history. We note that K08 in their study of NGC\,300 have 

753: found two similar

754: outliers not representing the expected metallicity at their galactocentric distance. They expressed that 

755: the idea of homogeneous

756: metallicity might be naive. Excluding A14 from the weighted mean results in only a slight change to 

757: $\left[\mathrm{Z}\right]=-0.89\,\pm\,0.07$~dex.

758: 

759: Combining the results of our sample and the early B-type supergiants from \citet{bresolin2006}, 

760: there is no evidence of a metallicity dependence of the young stellar population with the 

761: spatial location in the galaxy (see Fig. \ref{fig_ebv_halpha}).

762: 

763: 

764: \subsection{Extinction}

765: 

766: Reddening values were determined using Johnson V-band and Cousins I-band photometry from

767: \citet{bresolin2006} \citep[see also][]{pietrzynski2007}, along with B-V and V-R colors from 

768: \citet{massey2007}. V- and I-band data 

769: for the stars in common in these papers are shown  

770: in Fig.~\ref{fig_photo}. For our sample of 11 B- and A-type supergiant stars (represented by filled 

771: dots in the figure) we obtain a difference in the zero points of $-0.03\pm0.02$~mag~and 

772: $-0.013\pm0.030$~mag~in V and I respectively, with the magnitudes from the first reference 

773: being fainter in both filters. Note that the star A17 was 

774: not considered in the I-band mean since it presents a large difference of almost -0.5~mag between

775: both datasets. Using multi-epoch photometry (around 100 epochs, spanning over 2 yr), \citet{bresolin2006}

776: did not detect variability, beyond the observational scatter, for any of our targets. It is thus unlikely that

777: the discrepancy

778: in A17 I-band magnitudes is related to variability. In the case of the early B-type supergiant A9,

779: its B-band magnitude is not consistent with all the other photometric measurements (see the corresponding 

780: plot in Fig.~\ref{fig_seds_ir}). In both cases, we did not take these values into account for the determination 

781: of the corresponding extinctions for the stars. 

782: 

783: For four of the stars in the sample (A4, A6, A9, and A10), we also have IR J- and K-band data from 

784: \citet{gieren2008}. 

785: 

786: The individual reddening values are presented in  Table~\ref{tab_parameters}, and some examples 

787: comparing the reddened synthetic SEDs with the photometry are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig_seds_ir}. 

788: Individual reddening values range from 0.03 to 0.12 mag, with the extreme case of 0.29 mag

789: for A6. Excluding this object, the mean reddening of the BA sample is 

790: 0.07$\,\pm\,$0.01 mag, or 0.08$\,\pm\,$0.01~mag when considering also the 

791: three early B-type supergiants. This mean value is higher than the

792: characteristic foreground value of E(B-V)=0.037 mag \citep{schlegel1998}, indicating that 

793: our stars suffer from internal (WLM produced) reddening. Our mean value is in agreement with the 

794: recent result by \citet{gieren2008} based on multi-wavelength observations of 

795: Cepheids. These authors find a mean characteristic reddening of $0.082\pm0.02$~mag. 

796: 

797: %If we include A6, we obtain a slightly higher mean reddening of  E(B-V)=0.09$\,\pm\,$0.03~mag, 

798: %assuming that our derived reddening is not related

799: %to the problems found during the analysis. 

800: With regard to A6, we note that a very high reddening value is derived for both the high 

801: temperature and the low temperature solution (discussed in Sect.~\ref{sect_stars}). This means that the star  

802: suffers three times the mean reddening. A6 could be spatially associated with, or close

803: enough to, one of the high column density \ion{H}{1} areas identified by \citet[][]{kepley2007}, in 

804: particular the region identified by these authors as the handle of the hook, extending north of 

805: the C1 H$\alpha$ complex of \citet{hodge1995}. However, two of the three early B-type 

806: supergiants, A9 and A10, seem to be also spatially related to high column density 

807: \ion{H}{1} regions, but they do not present such extreme reddening. We cannot discard, however, the possibility

808: of a patchy ISM on small scales, and comparable cases of high reddening have also been found by K08 in NGC\,300.

809: 

810: 

811: \subsection{Masses, radii and luminosities}

812: 

813: Once the fundamental parameters $T_{eff}$ and $log~g$ are known, it is possible to derive the distance dependent quantities 

814: by adopting

815: a distance to WLM. In the next section, we will derive a distance to the galaxy based on the Flux weighted 

816: Gravity--Luminosity Relationship, FGLR, of blue supergiant stars \citep{kudritzki2003}. For the purposes of this section, 

817: we adopt that distance, $\left(m-M\right)_0=24.99\pm0.10$~mag, without any further explanation, delaying 

818: its derivation to the next section. 

819: 

820: Using this distance, the apparent bolometric magnitudes can be converted to absolute bolometric magnitudes, and luminosities. 

821: From the luminosities and the effective temperatures, we compute the radii. With surface gravities and radii,

822: it is then possible to derive (spectroscopic) masses. All these quantities are summarized in Table~\ref{tab_masses}. To estimate

823: their uncertainties, we propagate the uncertainties in the fundamental parameters.

824: 

825: From the luminosities, we can also derive stellar masses using theoretical evolutionary models (see Fig.~\ref{fig_dhr}). For 

826: this purpose, we use

827: the mass-luminosity relationships presented by K08. In particular, we selected K08's fits to SMC metallicity models 

828: from \citet{maeder2001} and \citet{meynet2005} that take into account rotation. These evolutionary masses are 

829: given in the last column of Table~\ref{tab_masses}. The uncertainties of the spectroscopic masses take into account uncertainties 

830: in luminosities, gravities and radii. The uncertainties in evolutionary masses account only for the uncertainties in the derived 

831: luminosities and are much smaller. They are, however, affected by the systematic uncertainties of evolutionary tracks.

832: Fig.~\ref{fig_masses}a shows the comparison of evolutionary and spectroscopic masses, including the objects in NGC\,300 studied

833: by K08. Given the typical spectroscopic mass errors of $\pm0.1$ to $0.2$~dex, we conclude that we have agreement between the 

834: two types of mass determinations. However, there is an indication that the spectroscopic masses are systematically smaller than

835: evolutionary masses for high luminosities (above $M_\mathrm{bol}\sim-8$~mag, see Fig.~\ref{fig_masses}b). We 

836: will discuss this in section \ref{fglr_teo}.

837: 

838: From the direct inspection of the HRD and the masses given in Table~\ref{tab_masses}, we conclude that the BA stars of our sample were born

839: with masses in the range of 8 to 20 M$_\odot$, with the early B supergiants evolved from slightly more massive progenitors between $\sim$25

840: to 50 M$_\odot$. This is in agreement with the results found by K08 for NGC\,300, who explain the difference of the masses as a selection

841: effect. 

842:  

843: %%{\em Nevertheless, we would like to explore in detail the differences, since this issue will resurface in Sect.~\ref{sec_fglr}. 

844: %%Five of the stars in our sample (A4, A5, A12, A16 and A17) have smaller spectroscopic than evolutionary masses, with 

845: %%$\Delta\log\mathrm{M}$ ranging from -0.02 to -0.14~dex. The two other stars, A6 and A14, present the opposite result, with 

846: %%larger spectroscopic than evolutionary masses, but with very similar absolute value differences. Let's for a moment consider

847: %%the effect of rotation. Due to the low spectral resolution, it is not possible to determine projected rotational velocities, and hence to 

848: %%correct the observed surface gravities for the centrifugal acceleration. Nonetheless, we can estimate the required projected

849: %%rotational velocities to correct for the difference in masses. Except for A17, for which the mass difference is very small, all the other

850: %%stars would require very unlikely projected rotational rates, above 100~\kms. Typical values for BA supergiants in the Galaxy and the

851: %%Magellanic Clouds are in the range of 30 to 50 \kms (REFERENCE). A reasonable projected rotational velocity of

852: %%40~\kms~would account for $\sim\!0.02$~dex of the differences in masses (due to the correction in $log~g$). Therefore, we would be 

853: %%$\sim\!0.1$~dex shy of solving the mass issue. Even more, there is an extra

854: %%complication posed by A6 (assuming it is a single

855: %%star) and A14, with their difference in masses having the opposite sign. This cannot be explained by rotation induced corrections on 

856: %%the derived gravities. }

857: 

858: \section{Flux weighted gravity--luminosity relationship and distance to WLM \label{sec_fglr}} 

859: 

860: \citet[][see also K08]{kudritzki2003} revealed the existence of a tight correlation between the flux weighted gravity, 

861: $g_\mathrm{F}=g/T_\mathrm{eff}^4$, and the luminosity of BA supergiant stars. This relationship is supported by the predictions 

862: of evolutionary models. Very briefly, the physical reason behind this is that during their evolution from the Main Sequence,

863: massive stars with masses below $\sim60\,\mathrm{M}_\odot$ will evolve at almost constant luminosity and, due to the short 

864: timescale and the low mass loss rates, constant mass. In this case, the luminosity of the star is correlated with the 

865: flux weighted gravity. 

866: 

867: K08 have found a relation between the absolute bolometric magnitude and the flux weighted gravity of 

868: the form  

869: \begin{equation}

870: \label{eq1}

871: M_\mathrm{bol}=\mathrm{a}\left(\log g_\mathrm{F} - 1.5\right) + \mathrm{b}

872: \end{equation}

873: with their present best values of the coefficients a and b derived from a large sample of supergiants combining spectroscopic

874: results obtained for 8 different galaxies. These coefficients are given in Table~\ref{tab_fglr}. We also include the values  

875: obtained by K08 for only the supergiants in NGC\,300, to give an idea of the uncertainties involved in calibrating this relationship. 

876: 

877: The supergiants in WLM show a tight {\sc fglr} when plotted in apparent bolometric magnitudes 

878: (in Fig.~\ref{fig_fglr_mbol}). This can now be used to determine a distance. Following

879: K08, we fit an expression of the form \[m_\mathrm{bol}=\mathrm{a}\left(\log g_\mathrm{F} - 1.5\right) + \mathrm{b} \]

880: This fit is shown in Fig~\ref{fig_fglr_mbol} by the solid line, and the values for a and b are given in Table~\ref{tab_fglr} as well. 

881: With only ten stars the slope is somewhat uncertain, thus, we prefer to fix the slope to the value obtained by K08 for their large 

882: sample. We then recalculate the fit with this fixed slope (dashed line; the new value for the coefficient b is also presented 

883: in Table~\ref{tab_fglr}).  

884: The difference in b with respect to K08 then yields a first determination of the distance modulus, $\mu=\left(m-M\right)_0$, 

885: for which we obtain $\mu=24.99$~mag.

886: 

887: If we fix the slope to K08's \fglr for NGC\,300 stars only, and compare again, we derive $\mu=25.06$~mag. This can

888: be interpreted as an estimate of the possible systematic uncertainties to be about 0.06~mag.

889: 

890: %%Fig. \ref{fig_fglr}a shows that such relationship also exits for our WLM stars. In this case, we are using the apparent

891: %%bolometric magnitude, i.e. the apparent visual magnitude corrected for extinction, and with the bolometric correction accounted

892: %%for. In order to determine the distance by means of the FGLR, we first fit an expression of the form

893: %%\[m_\mathrm{bol}=\mathrm{a} + \mathrm{b}\left(\log g_\mathrm{F} - 1.5\right)\] to the observed values, with the slope fixed 

894: %%to one of the values obtained by K08. For reference, Table~\ref{tab_fglr} provides K08 fits' coefficients, as well as the values for

895: %%our WLM sample. The distance modulus is then given by the difference in the zero point coefficients, between the

896: %%calibrating \fglr (from K08) and our WLM fit. We can use the two {\sc fglr}s presented by K08, one considering only their NGC\,300 sample,

897: %%and the other one considering stars in several galaxies (including NGC\,300). The difference in the distance modulus to WLM 

898: %%obtained by applying alternatively these two calibrations is only 0.06~mag. If we do not fix the slope, the difference in distances

899: %%obtained from both calibrations is also 0.06~mag. Combining half of these differences, we define a systematic uncertainty for our 

900: %%method of 0.04~mag.

901: 

902: The statistical uncertainty of the distance modulus is given by 

903: \[\sigma^2=\frac{1}{n\left(n-1\right)}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\frac{\left(M_{\mathrm{bol},i}-M^\mathrm{FGLR}_{\mathrm{bol},i}\right)^2}{\widehat{\sigma}_i^2} \] 

904: where $\displaystyle n$ is the number of WLM stars, $\displaystyle M^\mathrm{FGLR}_{\mathrm{bol},i}$ is obtained from 

905: Eq.~\ref{eq1} evaluated at 

906: the corresponding observed $\displaystyle g_{\mathrm{F},i}$,  

907: $\displaystyle M_{\mathrm{bol},i}$ is the apparent bolometric magnitude m$_{bol,i}$ corrected by the derived distance 

908: modulus $\mu$, and $\widehat{\sigma}_i=\sigma_i/\sum_{j}\sigma_j$, with 

909: $\displaystyle\sigma_i^2=\sigma_{m_\mathrm{bol}}^2 + a^2\sigma_{\log g_\mathrm{F}}^2$ the individual

910: uncertainties in m$_{bol}$, accounting for the uncertainty in the BC, in the extinction and in the observed 

911: photometric errors, as well as the uncertainties in the flux weighted gravity. We obtain a statistical uncertainty associated 

912: with the distance modulus of $0.10$~mag.

913: 

914: An alternative way to determine the distance modulus is to minimize the residuals in magnitudes once the stars are shifted to 

915: a particular distance, i.e. we determine the value of $\mu$ that minimizes 

916: \[S^2\!\left(\mu\right)=\frac{1}{n\left(n-1\right)}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\frac{\left(m_{\mathrm{bol},i}-\mu-M^\mathrm{FGLR}_{\mathrm{bol},i}\right)^2}{\widehat{\sigma}_i^2} \] 

917: %%This process is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig_fglr_distance}, where $S\left(\mu\right)$ reaches the minimum for $\mu=24.99$~mag. 

918: For this second method, the uncertainty in the distance determination is given by the 

919: square root of the minimized residuals. 

920: 

921: 

922: The distances derived by both methods are in excellent agreement. This is a consequence of the fact that the slope of the 

923: relationship defined by the WLM stars is very close to the slopes found by K08 (see Table\ref{tab_fglr}). Fig.~\ref{fig_fglr_final} 

924: presents the final distance corrected \fglr for the WLM stars (filled circles), together with all the objects 

925: used by K08 to calibrate the relationship. This

926: figure also includes K08's \fglr fit used to calculate the distance to WLM. 

927: As can be seen in this figure, the agreement is very good. 

928: 

929: %%The

930: %%solid line represents the theoretical 

931: %%FGLR for SMC metallicity evolutionary models, once shifted by 0.16~mag towards fainter magnitudes (see next section). As can 

932: %%be seen in this figure, the agreement is very good. 

933: 

934: %%We can summarize these results in the first \fglr based distance to a galaxy. Our distance modulus to WLM results in 

935: %%$\left(m-M\right)_0=25.02\pm0.12\mathrm{\,(stat)}\,\pm0.04\mathrm{\,(sys)}$~mag. This value is anchoraged to a LMC distance 

936: %%modulus of 18.50~mag.   

937: 

938: 

939: Finally, we would like to point out that the solution used for A6 (cool or hot model) has little effect on the derived 

940: distance, since the values of the flux weighted gravity are very similar in both cases, and in any case, a change in the flux 

941: weighted gravity is correspondingly accompanied by changes in the bolometric correction and extinction (relatively minor in this case), in 

942: such a way that the star moves along the relationship. The physical reason behind this behavior of $g_\mathrm{F}$ has been 

943: extensively discussed by K08, to which the reader is referred for further insights.

944: 

945: 

946: \subsection{WLM FGLR: empirical versus theoretical relationships and metallicity dependence\label{fglr_teo}} 

947: 

948: In Fig.~\ref{fig_teofglr} we show the observed \fglr for WLM compared with the prediction of stellar evolution. We have chosen the stellar

949: evolution {\sc fglr}s for solar and SMC metallicity using evolutionary tracks by \citet{meynet2003}, and \citet{maeder2001} and 

950: \citet{meynet2005}, which include the effects of stellar rotation with initial rotational velocities of 300~\kms (for the related 

951: mass-luminosity relationships and the parameterization of the evolutionary {\sc fglr}s see K08).

952: 

953: We note that for low luminosity and high flux-weighted gravity ($log~g_\mathrm{F} > 1.6,\,M_\mathrm{bol} < -8$~mag) there is 

954: good agreement. However, towards lower gravities and higher

955: luminosities the stellar evolution {\sc fglr}s show a strong curvature and start to differ from the result of the spectral analysis. The

956: effect is stronger for SMC metallicity ([Z]=-0.7), which is close to the average metallicity we have determined for the young

957: stellar population in WLM. An indication of a similar discrepancy has already been noted by K08 (see their Fig.~27 and the corresponding

958: discussion). 

959: 

960: This discrepancy seems to be equivalent to a discrepancy between stellar evolutionary and spectroscopic mass at high luminosities (see

961: Fig.~\ref{fig_masses}). Note that (see K08, Eq.(29))

962: \[\displaystyle g_\mathrm{F}=g T_\mathrm{eff,4}^{-4}\propto M R^{-2} T_\mathrm{eff}^{-4}\propto M L^{-1}\]

963: and, in consequence, smaller spectroscopic masses result in a \fglr shifted towards smaller flux weighted gravities. Thus, one reason

964: for the discrepancy could be a systematic underestimate of stellar gravities by the spectral analysis at the high luminosity end of the

965: {\sc fglr}. We realize that the most discrepant objects in Fig.~\ref{fig_masses} and Fig.~\ref{fig_teofglr} are early B-type

966: supergiants, which where analyzed with a different stellar atmosphere code. On the other hand, K08 had a much larger sample of

967: supergiants available and did not find a systematic difference between high luminosity early B-types and BA-types.

968: 

969: Another possibility might be the effects of rotation on the evolutionary tracks. K08 noticed that tracks without rotation result in 

970: {\sc fglr}s shifted towards higher gravities because the mass-to-light ratio is larger. Thus, tracks with even higher initial rotation

971: than considered here may result in {\sc fglr}s in better agreement with the observations. However, such increase in 

972: rotational velocity will not be supported by recent studies of LMC and SMC Main Sequence B stars, progenitors of BA 

973: supergiants, showing projected rotational velocities below 

974: 200 \kms~\citep[see for example][]{hunter2008}. 

975: \\

976: 

977: Finally, it is also important to discuss a possible metallicity dependence of the {\sc fglr}. Except for the very high luminosity

978: end, the relative difference between the evolutionary {\sc fglr}s for [Z]=0.0 and [Z]=-0.7 is very small. This difference is mostly 

979: caused by the effects of mass-loss, which are stronger at higher metallicity and higher luminosity. The fact that we obtain a distance 

980: consistent with the TRGB and Cepheid studies of WLM using the \fglr calibration by K08, which is based on objects mostly with LMC 

981: metallicity, supports the conclusion that metallicity effects are not important. Future work on supergiants in other metal poor 

982: galaxies will very likely help to clarify the situation.

983: 

984: \section{Conclusions}\label{sec_discussion}

985: 

986: The primary goal of this work has been to determine the distance to WLM using a new spectroscopic method, the {\sc fglr}. The distance

987: modulus obtained, 24.99$\pm$0.10~mag, compares well with recent determinations, based on purely photometric methods. \citet{rizzi2007}

988: found 24.93$\pm$0.04~mag from the TRGB \citep[see also][and references in Sect.~\ref{intro}]{pietrzynski2007} and the multi-wavelength study of Cepheids by

989: \citet{gieren2008} yielded 24.924$\pm$0.04$\pm$0.04~mag (statistical and systematic errors). With only 10 stars available for our 

990: study, the statistical uncertainty is larger than the ones claimed by the photometric studies. However, this could certainly be improved

991: with a larger sample of objects. Our study also confirms that the young population of WLM suffers from significant extinction, higher

992: than the foreground value. This is another example where the accurate measurement of intrinsic extinction turns out to be important for

993: the determination of distances. It is the advantage of the spectroscopic method presented here that it yields 

994: reddening and extinction for the individual targets. 

995: 

996: We have also determined stellar metallicities and found an average value of  [Z]=-0.87$\,\pm\,$0.06~dex, in good agreement with previous

997: \ion{H}{2} region studies. The fact that the TRGB and {\sc fglr} distances agree at this low metallicity indicates that metallicity

998: effects are very likely small for the \fglr~method.

999: 

1000: Stellar evolution calculations can be used to determine a theoretical {\sc fglr}, which can then be compared with 

1001: observations. We find

1002: good agreement at low luminosities independent of metallicity assumptions for the theoretical relationship, but 

1003: disagreement at higher 

1004: luminosities with the theoretical {\sc fglr}, which are more important for the low metallicity. Assuming higher 

1005: initial rotational velocities, which would enhance mass-loss and rotational mixing, might be a way to solve 

1006: this discrepancy. These higher rotational rates are not supported by recent studies of the progenitors of these objects

1007: in the Magellanic Clouds.

1008: 

1009: Finally, our results for A14 (aka WLM-15) are in good agreement with the results obtained by \citet{venn2003}, 

1010: confirming to some 

1011: extent the particular nature of this object. Unfortunately, we could not perform an independent analysis of its oxygen abundance. 

1012: 

1013: In summary, this first application of the {\sc fglr} method to determine a distance to a galaxy has proven to be successful. The {\sc

1014: fglr} technique seems to be a robust and reliable way to provide independent and accurate information about extragalactic distances.  

1015: 

1016: 

1017: \acknowledgments

1018: WG and GP gratefully acknowledge financial support for this work from the Chilean Center for Astrophysics FONDAP 15010003, and

1019: from BASAL Centro de Astrof\'{\i}sica y Tecnolog\'{\i}as Afines (CATA). Support from the Polish grant N203 002 31/046 and the

1020: FOCUS subsidy of the Foundation for Polish Science (FNP) is also acknowledged. We would like to warmly

1021: thank Joachim Puls for his careful reading of the manuscript and suggestions. Finally, the anonymous

1022: referee is acknowledge for his constructive comments.

1023: 

1024: {\it Facilities:} \facility{VLT (FORS2)}.

1025: 

1026: 

1027: \appendix

1028: \section{Synthetic photometry} 

1029: In this appendix we present specific details relative to our synthetic photometry, that we consider could

1030: be useful to others.

1031: 

1032: We follow the ideas presented by \citet[][in particular see its Section 1.6]{bessell2005} in order to

1033: compute the photometric magnitudes from our model atmosphere models. Given a spectral energy distribution

1034: $f_\lambda$, the magnitude $\displaystyle m_A$ in a given filter with transmission curve 

1035: $\displaystyle R_A\left(\lambda\right)$ is calculated accounting for

1036: the fact that modern detectors count the number of photons, not energy, therefore

1037: $\displaystyle m_A \propto \int f_\lambda \left(\lambda\, R_A\left(\lambda\right)\right) d\lambda $. 

1038: 

1039: In order to determine the zeropoints of the different bandpasses, we use the recent spectral energy

1040: distribution of Vega presented by \citet{bohlin2007}, along with the filter curves obtained from different

1041: references. Table~\ref{tab_synthephot} contains the zeropoints of our synthetic photometry, as well as the

1042: references for the filter transmission curves.

1043: 

1044: 

1045: \begin{thebibliography}{}

1046: 

1047: \bibitem[Appenzeller et al.(1998)]{appenzeller1998} Appenzeller, I. et al. 1998,

1048: The Messenger, 94, 1

1049: 

1050: \bibitem[Asplund et al.(2004)]{asplund2004} Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A.J., 

1051:  Allende Prieto, C., \& Kiselman, D 2004, \aap, 417, 751

1052: 

1053: %% \bibitem[Blocker(1995)]{blocker1995} Blocker, T. 1995, \aap, 299, 755

1054: 

1055: \bibitem[Bessell(1990)]{bessell1990} Bessell, M. S. 1990, PASP, 102, 1181 

1056: 

1057: \bibitem[Bessell(2005)]{bessell2005} Bessell, M. S. 2005, \araa, 43, 293 

1058: 

1059: \bibitem[Bohlin(2007)]{bohlin2007} Bohlin, R. C. 2007, ASPC, 364, 315 

1060: 

1061: \bibitem[Bresolin et al.(2002)]{bresolin2002_01} Bresolin, F., Gieren, W., 

1062:    Kudritzki, R.-P., Pietrzy\'nski, G. \& Przybilla, N. 2002, \apj, 567, 277   

1063: 

1064: \bibitem[Bresolin et al.(2002)]{bresolin2002_02} Bresolin, F., Kudritzki,

1065: R.-P., Najarro, F., Gieren, W. \& Pietrzy\'nski, G. 2002, \apj, 577, L107

1066: 

1067: \bibitem[Bresolin et al.(2006)]{bresolin2006} Bresolin, F., Pietrzy\'nski, G.,

1068: Urbaneja, M.A., Gieren, W., Kudritzki,R.-P. \&  Venn, K.A. 2006, \apj, 

1069: 648, 1007

1070: 

1071: \bibitem[Cardelli et al.(1989)]{cardelli1989} Cardelli, J.A, Clayton, C. \&

1072: Mathis, J.S. 1989, \apj, 345, 245 

1073: 

1074: \bibitem[Deeming(1964)]{deeming1964} Deeming, T. J. 1964, \mnras, 127, 493 

1075: 

1076: \bibitem[Dolphin(2000)]{dolphin00} Dolphin, A.E.2000, \apj, 531, 804 

1077: 

1078: \bibitem[Evans \& Howarth(2003)]{evans2003} Evans, C.J. \& Howarth, I.D. 2003,

1079: \mnras, 345, 1223 

1080: 

1081: \bibitem[Ferraro et al.(1989)]{ferraro1989} Ferraro, F.R., Fusi Pecci, F., Tosi, M. \& Buonanno, R.

1082: 1989, \mnras, 241, 433

1083: 

1084: %% \bibitem[Freedman et al.(2001)]{freedman2001} Freedman, W. L., et al. 2001, \apj, 553, 47

1085: 

1086: \bibitem[Gieren et al.(2005)]{gieren2005} Gieren, W. et al. 2005, The Messenger, 121, 23 

1087: 

1088: \bibitem[Gieren et al.(2008)]{gieren2008} Gieren, W. et al. 2008, \apj, submitted  

1089: 

1090: \bibitem[Grevesse \& Sauval\/(1998)]{grevesse98} 

1091: Grevesse, N. \& Sauval, A. J. 1998, Space Science Reviews, 85, 161 

1092: 

1093: \bibitem[Hodge \& Miller(1995)]{hodge1995} Hodge,P. \& Miller, B.W. 1995, \apj, 451, 176

1094: 

1095: \bibitem[Holtzman et al.(2006)]{holtzman2006} Holtzman, J., Afonso, C. \& Dolphin, A. 2006, 

1096: \apjs, 166, 534 

1097: 

1098: \bibitem[Hunter et al.(2008)]{hunter2008} Hunter, I. et al. 2008, \aap, 479, 541 

1099: 

1100: \bibitem[Kepley et al.(2007)]{kepley2007} Kepley, A. A., Wilcots, E. M., Hunter, D. \& 

1101: Nordgren, T. 2007, \aj, 133, 2242 

1102: 

1103: \bibitem[Kudritzki et al.(2003)]{kudritzki2003} 

1104: Kudritzki, R.-P., Bresolin, F., \& Przybilla, N. 2003, \apj, 582, L83

1105: 	

1106: \bibitem[Kudritzki et al.(2008)]{kudritzki2008} Kudrizki, R.-P., Urbaneja, M.A., 

1107:    Bresolin, F., Przybilla, N., Gieren, W. \& Pietrzy\'nski, G. \apj, 2008, in press

1108: 

1109: \bibitem[Lee et al.(2005)]{lee2005} Lee, H., Skillman, E.D., \& Venn, K.A. 2005, \apj, 620, 223

1110: 

1111: \bibitem[Maeder \& Meynet(2001)]{maeder2001} Maeder, A. \& Meynet, G. 2000, \aap, 373, 555  

1112: 

1113: \bibitem[Massey et al.(2007)]{massey2007} Massey, P., Olsen, K. A. G., Hodge, P. W., Jacoby, G. H., 

1114: McNeill, R. T., Smith, R. C.\& Strong, S. B. 2007, AJ, 133, 2393 

1115: 

1116: \bibitem[McConnachie et al.(2005)]{mcconnachie2005} McConnachie, A.W., Irwin, M.J., Ferguson, 

1117: A.M.N., Ibata, R.A., Lewis, G.F. \& Tanvir, N. 2005, \mnras, 356, 979 

1118: 

1119: %%%\bibitem[M\'endez et al.(1988)]{mendez1988} M\'endez, R.H., Kudritzki, R.-P., Herrero, A., 

1120: %%%Husfeld, D. \& Groth, H.G. et al. 1988, \aap, 190, 113

1121: 

1122: \bibitem[Meynet \& Maeder(2003)]{meynet2003} Meynet, G. \& Maeder, A. 2003, \aap, 404, 975

1123: 

1124: \bibitem[Meynet \& Maeder(2005)]{meynet2005} Meynet, G. \& Maeder, A. 2005, \aap, 429, 581

1125: 

1126: \bibitem[Minniti \& Zijlstra(1997)]{minniti1997} Minniti, D. \& Zijlstra, A.A. 1997, \aj, 114, 147

1127: 

1128: %%\bibitem[Murtagh \& Heck(1987)]{murtagh1987} Murtagh, F. \& Heck, A. 1987, ``Multivariate data

1129: %%analysis\textquotedblright, Astrophisics and Space Science library, Eds. 

1130: 

1131: \bibitem[Pietrzy\'nski et al.(2007)]{pietrzynski2007} Pietrzy\'nski, G. et al. 

1132: 2007, \aj, 134, 594 

1133: 

1134: \bibitem[Przybilla et al.(2006)]{przybilla2006} Przybilla, N., Butler, K., Becker, S.R. \&

1135:  Kudrtizki, R.-P. 2006, \aap, 445, 1099 

1136: 

1137: %%%\bibitem[Puls et al.(2006)]{puls2006} Puls et al. 2006, \aap, 454, 625 

1138: 

1139: \bibitem[Rejkuba et al.(2000)]{rejkuba2000} Rejkuba, M., Minniti, D., Gregg, M.D., 

1140: Zijlstra, A.A., Alonso, M.V., \& Goudfrooij, P. 2000, \aj, 120, 801

1141: 

1142: \bibitem[Rizzi et al.(2007)]{rizzi2007} Rizzi,L., Tully, R. B., Makarov, D., Makarova, L., Dolphin, A. E., 

1143: Sakai, S. \& Shaya, E. J. 2007, \apj, 661, 815 

1144: 

1145: \bibitem[Sakai et al.(2004)]{sakai2004} Sakai, S., Ferrarese, L., Kennicutt, R.C. Jr. \& Saha, A. 

1146: 2004, \apj, 608, 42 

1147: 

1148: \bibitem[Schlegel et al.(1998)]{schlegel1998} Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P. \& Davies, M.

1149: 1998, \apj, 500, 525 

1150: 

1151: \bibitem[Skillman et al.(1989)]{skillman1989}

1152: Skillman, E.D., Kennicutt, R.C., \& Hodge, P.W. 1989, \apj, 347, 875

1153: 

1154: \bibitem[Sandage \& Carlson(1985)]{sandage1985} Sandage, A. \& Carlson, G. 1985

1155: \aj, 90, 1464 

1156: 

1157: \bibitem[Urbaneja et al.(2005)]{urbaneja2005} Urbaneja, M.A., Herrero, A., Bresolin, F.,

1158:    Kudritzki, R.-P., Gieren, W., Puls, J., Przybilla, N., Najarro, F. \& Pietrzy\'nski, G.

1159:    2005, \apj, 622, 862      

1160: 

1161: %% \bibitem[Venn(1995)]{venn1995} Venn, K.A. 1995, \apjs, 99, 659 

1162: 

1163: \bibitem[Venn et al.(2003)]{venn2003} Venn, K.A., Tolstoy, E., Kaufer, A.,

1164: Skillman, E.D., Clarkson, S.M., Smartt, S.J., Lennon, D.J. \& Kudritzki, R.-P.

1165: 2003, \aj, 126, 1326 

1166: 

1167: \bibitem[Whitney(1983)]{whitney1983} Whitney, C. A. 1983, A\&AS, 51, 443

1168:    

1169: \end{thebibliography}

1170: 

1171: \clearpage

1172: 

1173: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1174: %%%%

1175: %%%%  TABLES

1176: %%%%

1177: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1178: 

1179: \begin{deluxetable}{l c c l r c c c r r r }

1180:  \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

1181:  \tablecaption{WLM stars analyzed in this work. Primary identification following \citet{bresolin2006}.

1182:  Alternative identification and photometry from \citet{massey2007} is also included. For completeness, information

1183:  about the three early B supergiants studied by \citet{bresolin2006} is presented in this table. All photometric quantities

1184:  are in magnitude units. \label{tab_objects}}

1185:  \tablewidth{0pt}

1186:  \tablehead{ 

1187:  \colhead{ID} & \colhead{V} & \colhead{V-I} & \colhead{Spectral Type} & S/N &  & 

1188:  \colhead{Alt. ID} & \colhead{V} & \colhead{B-V} & \colhead{V-R} & \colhead{R-I} \\ 

1189:  \cline{1-5} \cline{7-11} 

1190:  \multicolumn{5}{c}{(Bresolin et al. 2006)} & & \multicolumn{5}{c}{(Massey et al. 2007)} }

1191:  \startdata 

1192:  

1193: A6  &  19.82 &  0.38 & A7\,Ib   &  49 & &  0156.16-152624.5 & 19.789 &  0.217 &  0.179 &  0.203 \\ 

1194: A4  &  20.22 &  0.07 & A2\,II   &  44 & &  0201.57-152527.0 & 20.185 &  0.016 &  0.038 &  0.056 \\ 

1195: A14 &  18.43 &  0.23 & A2\,II   &  96 & &  0159.56-152926.1 & 18.374 &  0.087 &  0.073 &  0.120 \\ 

1196: A16 &  18.44 &  0.16 & A2\,Ia   &  96 & &  0157.89-153013.1 & 18.383 &  0.204 &  0.058 &  0.055 \\ 

1197: A2\tablenotemark{a}  &  20.16 &  0.09 & A0\,II   &  44 & &  0159.04-152442.8 & 20.142 & -0.014 &  0.052 &  0.027 \\  

1198: A12 &  17.98 &  0.06 & B9\,Ia   & 119 & &  0153.22-152839.5 & 17.966 &  0.005 &  0.031 &  0.014 \\ 

1199: A5  &  19.41 & -0.04 & B8\,Iab  &  64 & &  0203.31-152552.6 & 19.412 & -0.117 & -0.021 & -0.082 \\ 

1200: A17 &  19.34 &  0.00 & B5\,Ib   &  67 & &  0200.81-153024.8 & 19.313 & -0.109 & -0.026 &  0.451 \\ 

1201: %%    &        &       &          &     & & 		    &	     &	      &        &        \\ 

1202: A9\tablenotemark{b}  &  18.44 & -0.06 & B1.5\,Ia & 101 & &  0157.20-152718.0 & 18.392 &  0.201 & -0.028 & -0.059 \\ 

1203: A10\tablenotemark{b} &  19.34 & -0.15 & B0\,Iab  &  68 & &  0154.06-152745.4 & 19.317 & -0.171 & -0.050 & -0.093 \\ 

1204: A11\tablenotemark{b} &  18.40 & -0.18 & O9.7\,Ia & 106 & &  0159.95-152819.0 & 18.378 & -0.109 & -0.069 & -0.120 \\ 

1205: %    &        &       &          &     & & 		   &	    &	     &        &        \\ 

1206: \enddata

1207: \tablenotetext{a}{This stars is outside the limits of the grid of models, therefore it cannot be analyzed.}

1208: \tablenotetext{b}{Early B-type supergiant studied by \citet{bresolin2006}.}

1209: \end{deluxetable}

1210: \clearpage 

1211: 

1212: 

1213: \begin{deluxetable}{l c c c c }

1214:  \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

1215:  \tablecaption{Mean J and K photometry from multi-epoch observations by \citet{gieren2008}\label{tab_IR}}

1216:  \tablewidth{0pt}

1217:  \tablehead{ 

1218:  \colhead{ID} & \colhead{J} & \colhead{$\sigma\left(\mathrm{J}\right)$} & \colhead{K} & 

1219:  \colhead{$\sigma\left(\mathrm{K}\right)$} \\

1220:  \colhead{} & \colhead{(mag)} & \colhead{(mag)} & \colhead{(mag)} & \colhead{(mag)} 

1221:  } 

1222:  \startdata 

1223: A6  & 19.055 & 0.022 & 18.896 & 0.129 \\

1224: A4  & 19.889 & 0.021 & 19.843 & 0.067 \\

1225: A2  & 19.916 & 0.010 & 19.748 & 0.158 \\  

1226: %%    &        &       &        &       \\

1227: A9  & 18.578 & 0.015 & 18.709 & 0.111 \\

1228: A10 & 19.624 & 0.009 & 19.673 & 0.082 \\

1229: %%  

1230: %% A2  & 19.916 & 0.010 & 19.748 & 0.158 \\ 

1231: %% B11 & 19.287 & 0.032 & 18.975 & 0.242 \\ 

1232: \enddata

1233: \end{deluxetable}

1234: \clearpage 

1235: 

1236: 

1237: %%%%%%

1238: 

1239: %%\begin{deluxetable}{l c l c l c l c l c }

1240: %% \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

1241: %% \tablecaption{Reference chemical abundance pattern.\label{tab_abun_pattern}}

1242: %% \tablewidth{0pt}

1243: %% \tablehead{ \colhead{Species} & \colhead{N(X)/N(H)} & \colhead{Species} & \colhead{N(X)/N(H)} &  

1244: %% \colhead{Species} & \colhead{N(X)/N(H)} & \colhead{Species} & \colhead{N(X)/N(H)} & 

1245: %% \colhead{Species} & \colhead{N(X)/N(H)} \\          

1246: %%}

1247: %% \startdata 

1248: %%

1249: %% He  & 0.136  & Si & 3.63-5 & Ti & 8.72-8 & Ni & 1.77-6  & Ba & 1.66-10 \\

1250: %% O   & 6.76-4 & P  & 3.64-7 & V  & 1.05-8 & Cu & 1.95-8  &    &         \\

1251: %% Ne  & 1.19-4 & S  & 1.59-5 & Cr & 4.90-7 & Zn & 4.67-8  &    &         \\ 

1252: %% Na  & 2.09-6 & K  & 1.35-7 & Mn & 3.39-7 & Sr & 8.32-10 &    &         \\

1253: %% Mg  & 3.81-5 & Ca & 2.24-6 & Fe & 3.17-5 & Y  & 1.69-10 &    &         \\

1254: %% Al  & 3.09-6 & Sc & 1.26-9 & Co & 8.24-8 & Zr & 4.07-10 &    &         \\ 

1255: %%\enddata

1256: %%\end{deluxetable}

1257: %%\clearpage 

1258: 

1259: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccccrrr}

1260: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

1261: \tablewidth{0pt}

1262: \tablecaption{Fitness of the solutions. See text for definitions of $\displaystyle R$ and $\displaystyle Q$. 

1263: Stars are grouped in two sets, according to the method used to determine the temperature. For the first group, the Balmer jump is used,

1264: and for the second we use the \ion{He}{1} lines for A5 and A17, and the relative strength of \ion{Ti}{2} lines for A4 (see text). 

1265: \label{tab_fitness}}

1266: \tablehead{

1267: \colhead{ID} & \colhead{$\displaystyle R\left(log~g\right)$} & 

1268: \colhead{$\displaystyle R\left([Z]\right)$} & \colhead{$\displaystyle R\left(T_{eff}\right)$} &

1269: \colhead{$R$} & 

1270: \colhead{S/N} & \colhead{$\displaystyle Q\left(log~g\right)$} &

1271: \colhead{$\displaystyle Q\left([Z]\right)$} & \colhead{$\displaystyle Q\left(T_{eff}\right)$}

1272: }

1273: \startdata											  

1274: A6\tablenotemark{a}& 0.1273 & 0.1397 & 0.0799 & 0.3469 &  49  & -0.3480 &  4.2911 & -0.9223 \\			   

1275: A6\tablenotemark{b}& 0.1190 & 0.1435 & 0.0213 & 0.2838 &  49  &  1.0856 &  4.3364 & -0.0874 \\			

1276: A14                & 0.1085 & 0.0430 & 0.0210 & 0.1726 &  96  & -0.6183 &  0.2116 & -0.0461 \\				 

1277: A16                & 0.0651 & 0.0535 & 0.0037 & 0.1223 &  96  & -0.3119 &  0.3723 &  0.0067 \\

1278: A12                & 0.0397 & 0.0388 & 0.0196 & 0.0982 &  119 & -1.0653 &  0.0388 &  0.0675 \\				 

1279: \cline{1-9}   

1280: A4                 & 0.1404 & 0.1047 & 0.0836 & 0.3288 &  44  &  0.2761 & -1.7217 & -0.0375 \\	       

1281: A5                 & 0.0641 & 0.0768 & 0.0689 & 0.2099 &  64  & -0.7499 &  0.8870 &  0.0169 \\

1282: A17                & 0.0842 & 0.0479 & 0.0305 & 0.1682 &  67  & -0.5869 &  0.2315 &  0.0004 \\					 

1283: \enddata							     	 			  

1284: \tablenotetext{a}{Cool solution, does not reproduce the Balmer jump, see text} 				  

1285: \tablenotetext{b}{Hot solution that reproduces the Balmer jump} 				 

1286: \end{deluxetable}										 

1287: \clearpage

1288: 

1289: %

1290: % following table only for internal use

1291: %

1292: %%\begin{deluxetable}{ccrcc}

1293: %%\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

1294: %%\tablecolumns{5}

1295: %%\tablewidth{0pt}

1296: %%\tablecaption{Uncertainties in fundametal parameters related to measuring the Balmer jump.\label{tab_uncer}}

1297: %%\tablehead{

1298: %%\colhead{ID} & \colhead{$\displaystyle D_B$} & \colhead{$\displaystyle\Delta\:T_{eff}$} & 

1299: %%\colhead{$\Delta\:log~g$} & \colhead{ $\displaystyle\Delta\,\left[Z\right]$ }  \\

1300: %%\colhead{ }  & \colhead{(dex)} & \colhead{(K)} & \colhead{(dex)} & \colhead{(dex)} %%

1301: %%}

1302: %%\startdata											  

1303: %%A6  & 0.529$\pm$0.022 & 147 & 0.10 & 0.15 \\

1304: %%A12 & 0.166$\pm$0.004 &  66 & 0.01 & 0.02 \\

1305: %%A14 & 0.638$\pm$0.016 & 104 & 0.10 & 0.13 \\ 

1306: %%A16 & 0.268$\pm$0.011 & 117 & 0.02 & 0.04 \\  

1307: %%\enddata	

1308: %%\end{deluxetable}										 

1309: %%\clearpage

1310: 

1311: \begin{deluxetable}{crcccccc}

1312: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

1313: %\tablecolumns{11}

1314: \tablewidth{0pt}

1315: \tablecaption{WLM - Stellar parameters \label{tab_parameters}}

1316: \tablehead{

1317: \colhead{ID} & \colhead{$T_{eff}$}  & \colhead{$log~g$}  &

1318: \colhead{$log~g_\mathrm{F}$} & \colhead{[Z]}  & \colhead{E(B-V)} & \colhead{$\xi$} & \colhead{comments}\\

1319: \colhead{}     &  \colhead{(K)}         & \colhead{(cgs)}      &

1320: \colhead{(cgs)}	      & \colhead{}     &  \colhead{(mag)} & \colhead{(\kmsb)} &\colhead{} } 

1321: \startdata

1322: A6   &  8750$\pm$240 & 1.95$\pm$0.17 & 2.19$\pm$0.12 & -0.15$\pm$0.33 & 0.295$\pm$0.010 &  4 & \tablenotemark{a} \\    

1323: A4   &  8550$\pm$350 & 2.00$\pm$0.20 & 2.27$\pm$0.13 & -0.77$\pm$0.26 & 0.060$\pm$0.030 &  4 & \tablenotemark{b} \\     

1324: A14  &  8270$\pm$144 & 1.60$\pm$0.12 & 1.93$\pm$0.09 & -0.50$\pm$0.19 & 0.124$\pm$0.007 &  4 & \\  		    

1325: A16  & 10650$\pm$120 & 1.78$\pm$0.05 & 1.67$\pm$0.03 & -0.70$\pm$0.23 & 0.112$\pm$0.023 &  6 & \\  		    

1326: A12  & 12100$\pm$136 & 1.79$\pm$0.03 & 1.46$\pm$0.01 & -0.78$\pm$0.21 & 0.061$\pm$0.004 &  8 & \\  		    

1327: A5   & 12220$\pm$430 & 2.20$\pm$0.07 & 1.87$\pm$0.02 & -0.70$\pm$0.14 & 0.030$\pm$0.010 &  4 & \tablenotemark{c} \\    

1328: A17  & 13500$\pm$450 & 2.35$\pm$0.07 & 1.86$\pm$0.03 & -1.00$\pm$0.15 & 0.061$\pm$0.004 &  5 & \tablenotemark{c} \\    

1329: A9   & 20000$\pm$1000& 2.45$\pm$0.10 & 1.62$\pm$0.03 & -1.00$\pm$0.20 & 0.130$\pm$0.020 & 12 & \tablenotemark{d} \\ 

1330: A10  & 25000$\pm$1000& 2.90$\pm$0.10 & 1.62$\pm$0.03 & -0.80$\pm$0.20 & 0.160$\pm$0.020 & 15 & \tablenotemark{d} \\  

1331: A11  & 29000$\pm$1000& 3.00$\pm$0.10 & 1.62$\pm$0.03 & -0.80$\pm$0.20 & 0.070$\pm$0.019 & 15 & \tablenotemark{d} \\ 

1332: %%              &       &      &      &       &       & \\

1333: %%     &         

1334: \enddata

1335: \tablenotetext{a}{Metallicity uncertain, see text}

1336: \tablenotetext{b}{no Balmer jump measured; $T_{eff}$ determined from spectrum (Ti~{\sc ii} lines, see text)}

1337: \tablenotetext{c}{no Balmer jump measured; $T_{eff}$ from HeI lines, see text}

1338: \tablenotetext{d}{Results from \citet{bresolin2006}, with E(B-V) updated with the IR photometry as well as \citet{massey2007} data.}

1339: \tablecomments{Note that the microturbulence is not derived in this work. See text for an explanation.} 

1340: 

1341: %% \tablenotetext{c}{Balmer jump not consistent with the spectrum; $T_{eff}$ determined from spectrum}

1342: %%\tablenotetext{d}{Metallicity determination not possible due to the low signal-to-noise}

1343: \end{deluxetable}

1344: \clearpage

1345: 

1346: \begin{deluxetable}{crcccrrr}

1347: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

1348: \tablewidth{0pt}

1349: \tablecaption{Bolometric corrections and distance dependent magnitudes: radii, luminosities and masses \label{tab_masses}}

1350: \tablehead{

1351: \colhead{name}    &

1352: \colhead{$m_{V}$} &  \colhead{BC} & \colhead{$m_{bol}$} & \colhead{$\log L/L_\odot$} &

1353: \colhead{R} & \colhead{$M^{\mathrm{spec}}$}     & \colhead{$M^{\mathrm{evol}}$}     \\

1354: \colhead{}        & 

1355: \colhead{(mag)}	  & \colhead{(mag)} & \colhead{(mag) \tablenotemark{a}}  & 

1356: \colhead{(cgs) \tablenotemark{b}} &  

1357: \colhead{(R$_{\odot}$)\,\tablenotemark{b}} &

1358: \colhead{(R$_{\odot}$)\,\tablenotemark{b}} & 

1359: \colhead{(M$_{\odot}$)\,\tablenotemark{b}}

1360: } 

1361: \startdata

1362: A6  &  19.82$\pm$0.03 & -0.02$\pm$0.02 & 18.85$\pm$0.04 & 4.35$\pm$0.05  &  65.5$\pm$5.4 & 14.3$\pm$6.1 & 10.2$\pm$0.4 \\  

1363: A4  &  20.22$\pm$0.05 & -0.05$\pm$0.05 & 19.98$\pm$0.12 & 3.90$\pm$0.09  &  40.7$\pm$5.3 &  6.1$\pm$3.2 &  7.7$\pm$0.4 \\  

1364: A14 &  18.43$\pm$0.02 &  0.00$\pm$0.01 & 18.05$\pm$0.03 & 4.67$\pm$0.05  & 106.3$\pm$7.2 & 16.4$\pm$5.1 & 12.8$\pm$0.5 \\  

1365: A16 &  18.44$\pm$0.02 & -0.43$\pm$0.01 & 17.65$\pm$0.07 & 4.83$\pm$0.07  &  76.8$\pm$6.4 & 13.0$\pm$2.6 & 14.4$\pm$0.8 \\  

1366: A12 &  17.98$\pm$0.01 & -0.70$\pm$0.01 & 17.07$\pm$0.03 & 5.06$\pm$0.05  &  77.8$\pm$5.1 & 13.6$\pm$2.0 & 17.4$\pm$0.8 \\	      

1367: A5  &  19.41$\pm$0.02 & -0.81$\pm$0.03 & 18.59$\pm$0.08 & 4.46$\pm$0.07  &  38.1$\pm$4.1 &  8.4$\pm$2.3 & 11.0$\pm$0.5 \\	   

1368: A17 &  19.34$\pm$0.02 & -0.85$\pm$0.02 & 18.28$\pm$0.07 & 4.58$\pm$0.07  &  38.9$\pm$4.1 & 11.3$\pm$3.0 & 11.9$\pm$0.6 \\	   

1369: %%%    &        &       &       &      &	     &      &	     \\    

1370: %%%B11 &  19.75 & -0.22 & 19.251&  5.33& 50.93  & 10.08&	     \\    

1371: %%%B12 &  18.77 &  0.00 & 18.646& 17.92& 88.16  & 12.08&	     \\    

1372: %%%B14 &  19.98 & -0.40 & 19.487& 10.20& 37.40  &  9.08&	     \\    

1373: A9  &  18.44$\pm$0.02 & -1.91$\pm$0.12 & 16.13$\pm$0.18 & 5.44$\pm$0.11  &  43.9$\pm$7.1 & 19.8$\pm$7.9  & 26.8$\pm$2.7 \\

1374: A10 &  19.34$\pm$0.02 & -2.46$\pm$0.10 & 16.39$\pm$0.21 & 5.34$\pm$0.12  &  25.0$\pm$4.0 & 18.1$\pm$9.2  & 24.5$\pm$2.7 \\

1375: A11 &  18.40$\pm$0.02 & -2.81$\pm$0.09 & 15.38$\pm$0.17 & 5.74$\pm$0.11  &  29.5$\pm$4.0 & 31.8$\pm$11.6 & 35.9$\pm$4.0 \\

1376: 

1377: \enddata

1378: \tablenotetext{a}{Apparent bolometric magnitude:  $\displaystyle m_{bol}$ = ($\displaystyle m_{V}$ - $\displaystyle A_{V}$) + BC}

1379: \tablenotetext{b}{Distance dependent magnitudes evaluated for $\displaystyle \left(m-M\right)_0\,=\,24.99\,\pm\,0.10$~mag}

1380: \end{deluxetable}

1381: \clearpage 

1382: 

1383: 

1384: \begin{deluxetable}{rccl}

1385: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

1386: \tablewidth{0pt}

1387: \tablecaption{FGLR coefficients,  

1388: $\displaystyle \{ M_\mathrm{bol},m_\mathrm{bol}\}\,=\,a\left(log~g_\mathrm{F} - 1.5\right) + b$. 

1389: \label{tab_fglr}}

1390: \tablehead{

1391: \colhead{Relationship}  &  \colhead{a} & \colhead{b} & \colhead{Comments} } 

1392: \startdata

1393: K08-all      & 3.41$\pm$0.16 & -8.02$\pm$0.04  & $M_\mathrm{bol}$, calibrating \fglr using stars in 8 galaxies  \\

1394: K08-NGC\,300 & 3.52$\pm$0.25 & -8.11$\pm$0.07  & $M_\mathrm{bol}$, calibrating \fglr using only NGC\,300 stars  \\

1395: WLM          & 3.48$\pm$0.36 & 16.95$\pm$0.12  & $m_\mathrm{bol}$, WLM stars analyzed in this work             \\ %% 0.31, 0.13 are the uncertainties 

1396: WLM-all      & {\it 3.41}    & 16.97$\pm$0.09  & $m_\mathrm{bol}$, WLM stars with \fglr slope from K08-all      \\

1397: WLM-NGC\,300 & {\it 3.52}    & 16.95$\pm$0.08  & $m_\mathrm{bol}$, WLM stars with \fglr slope from K08-NGC\,300 \\

1398: \enddata

1399: \tablecomments{Adopted slopes are shown in italics} 

1400: \end{deluxetable}

1401: \clearpage 

1402: 

1403: 

1404: 

1405: \begin{deluxetable}{crrl}

1406: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

1407: \tablewidth{0pt}

1408: \tablecaption{Synthetic photometry zeropoints \label{tab_synthephot}}

1409: \tablehead{

1410: \colhead{Bandpass}  &  \colhead{Zeropoint} & \colhead{$\lambda_0$} & \colhead{Reference} \\

1411: \colhead{}          &  \colhead{ (mJy) }   & \colhead{ (\AA) }     & \colhead{}           }      

1412: \startdata

1413: V                   &   3647.62   &  5450 & \citet{bessell1990}  \\

1414: I                   &   2432.91   &  7980 & \citet{bessell1990}  \\ 

1415: B (KPNO)            &   4070.71   &  4381 & NOAO filter K1002 \tablenotemark{a} \\

1416: V (KPNO)            &   3726.61   &  5387 & NOAO filter K1003 \tablenotemark{a} \\

1417: R (KPNO)            &   3100.14   &  6513 & NOAO filter K1004 \tablenotemark{a} \\

1418: I (KPNO)            &   2488.43   &  8245 & NOAO filter K1005 \tablenotemark{a} \\

1419: J (2MASS)           &   1594.00   & 12350 & 2MASS web page \tablenotemark{b}  \\

1420: Ks (2MASS)          &    667.00   & 21590 & 2MASS web page \tablenotemark{b}  \\

1421: \enddata

1422: \tablenotetext{a}{http://www.lsstmail.org/kpno/mosaic/filters/filters.html}

1423: \tablenotetext{b}{http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/waw/2mass/opt\_cal/}

1424: \end{deluxetable}

1425: \clearpage 

1426: 

1427: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1428: %%%%

1429: %%%%  FIGURES 

1430: %%%%

1431: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1432: 

1433: \clearpage

1434: \begin{figure}

1435:   \begin{center}

1436:   \includegraphics[width=0.80\textwidth,angle=90]{f1.ps}

1437:   \caption{Determination of surface gravity. For illustration purposes, only three lines are

1438:   presented. From top to bottom: H$\beta$, H$\gamma$ and

1439:   H$\delta$. For each line, the first panel shows the base vector, the second one displays the projection of the

1440:   models (crosses) and the observed spectrum (filled dot), and the third panel presents a solution by applying 

1441:   a minimum distance method (minimization of the quadratic differences, 

1442:   $\sum_{\lambda}\left(O_\lambda - S^j_\lambda\right)^2$ ) for comparison. The derived $log~g$ for each line is also

1443:   included in each individual plot. \label{fig_proj_balmer}}

1444:   \end{center}

1445: \end{figure}

1446: 

1447: \clearpage

1448: \begin{figure}

1449:   \begin{center}

1450:   \includegraphics[width=0.80\textwidth,angle=90]{f2.ps}

1451:   \caption{Metallicity determination. For illustration purposes, only four

1452:   spectral windows are shown. For details about

1453:   each individual panel, see previous figure. \label{fig_proj_met}}

1454:   \end{center}

1455: \end{figure}

1456: 

1457: \clearpage

1458: \begin{figure}

1459:   \begin{center}

1460:   \includegraphics[scale=.7]{f3.ps}

1461:   \caption{Determination of $T_{eff}$: (a) definition of the Balmer jump region; diamonds identified the wavelength points use

1462:   to create the PCA base vector. (b) $T_{eff}$ determination based on the minimum difference between the observed and modeled Balmer 

1463:   jump measurements, with 

1464:   D$_\mathrm{B}\,=\,<\log$F$_{\lambda}^\mathrm{pre}>\,-\,<\log$F$_{\lambda}^\mathrm{post}>\,$ following K08; 

1465:   the cross marks the derived temperature. (c) PCA base vector for the Balmer jump, and (d) projection of the models 

1466:   (hollow diamonds) and the observed Balmer area (cross). \label{fig_proj_jump}}

1467:   \end{center}

1468: \end{figure}

1469: 

1470: \clearpage

1471: \begin{figure}

1472:   \begin{center}

1473:   \includegraphics[]{f4.ps}

1474:   \caption{$T_{eff}$--$log~g$ diagram for star A14 of our sample. The solution provided by the algorithm 

1475:   is defined by the small box, while the solution obtained by the conventional method would be located at 

1476:   the intersection of the two $T_{eff}$--$log~g$ fit curves for the Balmer jump (x) and the Balmer lines (+). 

1477:   The dashed lines define the final uncertainties in the derived parameters.     

1478:   \label{fig_classic_fit}}

1479:   \end{center}

1480: \end{figure}

1481: 

1482: \clearpage

1483: \begin{figure}

1484:   \begin{center}

1485:   \includegraphics[width=0.80\textwidth]{f5a.ps}

1486:   \includegraphics[width=0.80\textwidth]{f5b.ps}  

1487:   \caption{Relevance of the S/N on metallicity determination. First four plots correspond to a 

1488:   $\left[\mathrm{Z}\right]= 0.00$~dex case; the second set of plots present the case for 

1489:   $\left[\mathrm{Z}\right]=-0.85$~dex. In each individual plot, the x-axis 

1490:   represents the difference between input and derived metallicities, and the y-axis gives the relative frequency, for a 

1491:   total number of 100 independent trials. A Gaussian fit to the resultant distribution is shown, and its sigma 

1492:   is given in each plot. 

1493:   \label{fig_sigma_met}}

1494:   \end{center}

1495: \end{figure}

1496: 

1497: 

1498: \begin{figure}

1499:   \begin{center}

1500:   \includegraphics[width=0.90\textwidth,angle=180]{f6.ps}

1501:   \caption{UVES/VLT (R=32000) spectrum of WLM-A14 compared with our solution (red) 

1502:   obtained from the analysis of low-resolution FORS2/VLT (R$\sim$1000) spectrum. 

1503: \label{fig_highres}}

1504:   \end{center}

1505: \end{figure}

1506: 

1507: \clearpage

1508: \begin{figure}

1509:   \begin{center}

1510:   \includegraphics[width=0.90\textwidth]{f7.ps}

1511:   \caption{Comparison of photometric measurements. First row: V- and I-band photometric 

1512:   data from \citet{bresolin2006} and \citet[][M2007 subindex]{massey2007}, for a total number of 35 stars in 

1513:   common (diamonds). The stars analyzed in this work, and the three early B-type supergiants of 

1514:   \citet{bresolin2006} are represented by filled circles. The

1515:   1:1 relationship is represented by the dashed line. Second row: considering only the 11 stars analyzed 

1516:   in our work, we find a mean difference in the zero point calibration of $-0.03\pm0.02$~mag~and 

1517:   $-0.013\pm0.030$~mag~in V and I respectively. The star A17, not considered in the I-band mean,

1518:   presents a difference with respect to our reference value of almost -0.5~mag.

1519:   \label{fig_photo}}

1520:   \end{center}

1521: \end{figure}

1522: 

1523: \clearpage

1524: \begin{figure}

1525:   \begin{center}

1526:   \includegraphics[width=0.90\textwidth]{f8.ps}

1527:   \caption{WLM Hertzsprung-Russel diagram. Circles locate the three early B-type supergiants analyzed by

1528:   \cite{bresolin2006}, once corrected for the difference in distance modulus. The filled squares display the

1529:   sample of BA supergiants analyzed in this work. Evolutionary tracks for rotating models from \citet{maeder2001} 

1530:   are also shown, labeled with their initial mass. \label{fig_dhr}}

1531:   \end{center}

1532: \end{figure}

1533: 

1534: 

1535: \clearpage

1536: \begin{figure}

1537:   \begin{center}

1538:   \includegraphics[width=0.70\textwidth]{f9a.ps}

1539:   \includegraphics[width=0.70\textwidth]{f9b.ps}

1540:   \caption{WLM stellar masses. (a) Comparison of evolutionary and spectroscopic masses for our sample of 

1541:   WLM stars (filled circles) and the B supergiants of \citet[][filled squares]{bresolin2006}. The sample of NGC\,300 BA supergiants 

1542:   from K08 (circles) as well as the early B supergiants from \citet[][empty squares]{urbaneja2005} are also shown, with the 

1543:   dotted line defining the 1:1 relation. (b) The ratio of spectroscopic to evolutionary mass versus the stellar luminosity, for the WLM sample.

1544:   Symbols as in (a).\label{fig_masses}}

1545:   \end{center}

1546: \end{figure}

1547: 

1548: \clearpage

1549: \begin{figure}

1550:   \begin{center}

1551:   \includegraphics[scale=.45]{f10a.ps}

1552:   \includegraphics[scale=.45]{f10b.ps}

1553:   \includegraphics[scale=.45]{f10c.ps}

1554:   \includegraphics[scale=.45]{f10d.ps}  

1555:   \caption{Synthetic reddened SEDs and photometric measurements for different stars in our WLM combined sample. Circles 

1556:   correspond to V and I photometric values from \citet{bresolin2006} as well as J and Ks photometry from 

1557:   \citet{gieren2008}, and crosses stand for \citet{massey2007} B,V,R and I-band data. \label{fig_seds_ir}}

1558:   \end{center}

1559: \end{figure}

1560: 

1561: \clearpage

1562: \begin{figure}

1563:   \begin{center}

1564:   \includegraphics[width=0.90\textwidth]{f11.ps}

1565:   \caption{Spatial distribution of the objects. The image is a false color composition using [\ion{S}{2}] (red

1566:   channel), H$\alpha$ (green channel) and [\ion{O}{3}] (blue channel) narrow band images from the Local Group

1567:   Survey \citep{massey2007}. Star's color coding: white circles E(B-V)$<$0.05, cyan 0.05$\le$E(B-V)$<$0.10, 

1568:   yellow 0.10$\le$E(B-V)$<$0.15, and white boxes E(B-V)$\geq$0.15 mag. North is up and East is to the left of the

1569:   image. \label{fig_ebv_halpha}}

1570:   \end{center}

1571: \end{figure}

1572: 

1573: \clearpage

1574: \begin{figure}

1575:   \begin{center}

1576:   \includegraphics[width=0.90\textwidth]{f12.ps}

1577:   \caption{WLM \fglr based on apparent bolometric magnitudes,  

1578:    $\displaystyle m_\mathrm{bol}\,=\,m_\mathrm{v}\,-\,A_\mathrm{v}\,+\,BC$. The solid line is 

1579:   the best linear fit to the data, while the dashed line shows a linear fit when the slope is fixed

1580:   to K08's \fglr based on stars in 8 different galaxies (see text). The star A6 is identified in this

1581:   figure by the square.  \label{fig_fglr_mbol}}

1582:   \end{center}

1583: \end{figure}

1584: 

1585: \clearpage

1586: \begin{figure}

1587:   \begin{center}

1588:   \includegraphics[width=0.90\textwidth]{f13.ps}

1589:   \caption{WLM {\sc fglr}. This figure presents the bolometric magnitudes of our WLM stars, once corrected 

1590:   for the distance modulus derived through the {\sc fglr}. The sample of K08 is represented by open symbols 

1591:   (circles: NGC\,300 stars; diamonds: other galaxies. See K08 for details). The thick line corresponds to 

1592:   the \fglr calibration used to determine the distance to WLM.\label{fig_fglr_final}}

1593:   \end{center}

1594: \end{figure}

1595:   

1596: 

1597: \clearpage

1598: \begin{figure}

1599:   \begin{center}

1600:   \includegraphics[width=0.90\textwidth]{f14.ps}

1601:   \caption{WLM {\sc fglr}. Comparison of empirical and theoretical relationships. The theoretical {\sc fglr}s 

1602:   are obtained from evolutionary models with rotation for SMC metallicity 

1603:   \citep[][dashed line]{maeder2001, meynet2005} and solar metallicity

1604:   \citep[][dot-dash line]{meynet2003}. See text for a detailed discussion.\label{fig_teofglr}}

1605:   \end{center}

1606: \end{figure}

1607: 

1608: \end{document}

1609: 

1610: