1:
2: %% This is a revised main text for ApJ, 2002/2/14 by MTH
3: %
4: \documentclass{aastex}
5:
6: %% preprint produces a one-column, single-spaced document:
7:
8:
9:
10: %\documentclass[preprint]{aastex}
11:
12: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
13:
14: %% \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
15:
16: %% If you want to create your own macros, you can do so
17: %% using \newcommand. Your macros should appear before
18: %% the \begin{document} command.
19: %%
20: %% If you are submitting to a journal that translates manuscripts
21: %% into SGML, you need to follow certain guidelines when preparing
22: %% your macros. See the AASTeX v5.0 Author Guide
23: %% for information.
24:
25:
26: \newcommand{\kms}{${\rm km \: s^{-1}}$}
27: \newcommand{\lsim}{${<}\atop{\sim}$}
28: \newcommand{\gsim}{${>}\atop{\sim}$}
29: \newcommand{\SI}{S~{\sc i}\ }
30: \newcommand{\FeI}{Fe~{\sc i}\ }
31: \newcommand{\FeII}{Fe~{\sc ii}\ }
32: \newcommand{\Teff}{$T_{\rm eff}$\ }
33: \newcommand{\logg}{log $g$\ }
34: \newcommand{\Wlam}{$W_{\lambda}$\ }
35: \newcommand{\Francois}{Fran{\c c}ois\ }
36:
37: %% You can insert a short comment on the title page using the command below.
38:
39: \slugcomment{Submitted to Astrophys. J.}
40:
41: %% If you wish, you may supply running head information, although
42: %% this information may be modified by the editorial offices.
43: %% The left head contains a list of authors,
44: %% usually a maximum of three (otherwise use et al.). The right
45: %% head is a modified title of up to roughly 44 characters. Running heads
46: %% will not print in the manuscript style.
47:
48: \shorttitle{Sulfur in Metal-Poor Stars}
49: \shortauthors{Takada-Hidai et al.}
50:
51:
52: %% This is the end of the preamble. Indicate the beginning of the
53: %% paper itself with \begin{document}.
54:
55: \begin{document}
56:
57:
58: \def\lsim{${<}\atop{\sim}$}
59: \def\gsim{${>}\atop{\sim}$}
60:
61: %% LaTeX will automatically break titles if they run longer than
62: %% one line. However, you may use \\ to force a line break if
63: %% you desire.
64:
65: \title{Behavior of Sulfur Abundances in Metal-Poor Giants and Dwarfs}
66:
67: %% Use \author, \affil, and the \and command to format
68: %% author and affiliation information.
69: %% Note that \email has replaced the old \authoremail command
70: %% from AASTeX v4.0. You can use \email to mark an email address
71: %% anywhere in the paper, not just in the front matter.
72: %% As in the title, you can use \\ to force line breaks.
73:
74: \author{Masahide Takada-Hidai}
75: \affil{Liberal Arts Education Center, Tokai University,
76: 1117 Kitakaname, Hiratsuka, Kanagawa, Japan 259-1292}
77: \email{hidai@apus.rh.u-tokai.ac.jp}
78:
79: \author{Yoichi Takeda}
80: \affil{Institute of Astronomy, The University of Tokyo,
81: Mitaka, Tokyo, Japan 181-0015}
82: \email{takedayi@cc.nao.ac.jp}
83:
84: \author{Shizuka Sato}
85: \affil{Department of Aeronautics, School of Engineering, Tokai University,
86: 1117 Kitakaname, Hiratsuka, Kanagawa, Japan 259-1292}
87: \email{shizuka@apus.rh.u-tokai.ac.jp}
88:
89: \author{Satoshi Honda}
90: \affil{National Astronomical Observatory, Mitaka, Tokyo, Japan
91: 181-8588}
92: \email{honda@optik.mtk.nao.ac.jp}
93:
94: \author{Kozo Sadakane}
95: \affil{Astronomical Institute, Osaka Kyoiku University, Kashiwara, Osaka,
96: Japan 582-8582}
97: \email{sadakane@cc.osaka-kyoiku.ac.jp}
98:
99: \author{Satoshi Kawanomoto}
100: \affil{Department of Astronomy, School of Science, The University of Tokyo,
101: Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan 113-0033}
102: \email{kawanomo@optik.mtk.nao.ac.jp}
103:
104: \author{Wallace L. W. Sargent and Limin Lu}
105: \affil{Department of Astronomy, California Institute of Technology,
106: Mail Stop 105-24, Pasadena, CA 91125}
107: \email{wws@astro.caltech.edu}
108:
109: \and
110:
111: \author{Thomas A. Barlow}
112: \affil{Infrared Processing and Analysis Center, California Institute of
113: Technology, Mail Stop 100-22,
114: Pasadena, CA 91125}
115: \email{tab@ipac.caltech.edu}
116:
117: %% Mark off your abstract in the ``abstract'' environment. In the manuscript
118: %% style, abstract will output a Received/Accepted line after the
119: %% title and affiliation information. No date will appear since the author
120: %% does not have this information. The dates will be filled in by the
121: %% editorial office after submission.
122:
123:
124:
125: \begin{abstract}
126: LTE and NLTE abundances of sulfur in 6 metal-poor giants and 61 dwarfs
127: (62 dwarfs, including the Sun)
128: were explored in the range of $-3$ \lsim [Fe/H] \lsim $+0.5$
129: using high-resolution, high signal-to-noise ratio spectra of the
130: \SI 8693.9 \AA\ and 8694.6 \AA\ lines observed by us and
131: measured by \Francois (1987, 1988) and Clegg et al. (1981).
132: NLTE effects in S abundances
133: are found to be small and practically negligible.
134: The behavior of [S/Fe] vs. [Fe/H] exhibits a linear increasing trend
135: without plateau with decreasing [Fe/H]. Combining our results with
136: those available in the literature, we find that the slope of the increasing
137: trend is $-0.25$ in the NLTE behavior of [S/Fe], which is
138: comparable to that observed in [O/Fe].
139: The observed behavior of S may require chemical
140: evolution models of the Galaxy, in which scenarios of hypernovae
141: nucleosynthesis and/or time-delayed deposition into interstellar medium
142: are incorporated.
143:
144: \end{abstract}
145:
146: %% Keywords should appear after the \end{abstract} command. The uncommented
147: %% example has been keyed in ApJ style. See the instructions to authors
148: %% for the journal to which you are submitting your paper to determine
149: %% what keyword punctuation is appropriate.
150:
151: \keywords{Galaxy: evolution ---nucleosynthesis, abundances ---
152: stars: abundances --- stars: atmospheres --- stars: Population II}
153:
154:
155: %% From the front matter, we move on to the body of the paper.
156: %% In the first two sections, notice the use of the natbib \citep
157: %% and \citet commands to identify citations. The citations are
158: %% tied to the reference list via symbolic KEYs. The KEY corresponds
159: %% to the KEY in the \bibitem in the reference list below. We have
160: %% chosen the first three characters of the first author's name plus
161: %% the last two numeral of the year of publication as our KEY for
162: %% each reference.
163:
164: \section{Introduction} %sec. 1
165:
166: The behavior of $\alpha$-elements such as oxygen, magnesium, silicon,
167: sulfur, calcium, and titanium in metal-poor halo and disk stars provides
168: us with
169: very useful information and constraints for exploring
170: stellar nucleosynthesis and chemical evolution of the Galaxy in the early
171: phase, since these elements are believed to be produced mainly by type II
172: supernovae (SNe II) of massive stars (e.g. Timmes, Woosely, \& Weaver 1995;
173: Chiappini et al. 1999; Carretta, Gratton, \& Sneden 2000) and are fossilized
174: in stars which have been born at various epochs of the Galaxy evolution.
175:
176: Numerous abundance works have been carried out for these elements (e.g.
177: see a review of McWilliam 1997). It is well known that the
178: $\alpha$-elements, except for O and S, show a general trend of
179: abundances such that [$\alpha$-element/Fe] increases with decreasing
180: metallicity [Fe/H] down to
181: about $-1$ dex, and forms a plateau with [$\alpha$-element/Fe] $\sim 0.3$ --
182: 0.5 dex in the range of [Fe/H] $< -1$ dex.
183: Here we define [A/B]$\equiv$ log (A/B)$_{\rm star} - $log (A/B)$_{\rm Sun}$
184: for the elements of A and B and use it throughout the text hereafter.
185: The behavior of [O/Fe] against [Fe/H] is controversial, i.e. whether
186: [O/Fe] shows a plateau (e.g. Barbuy 1988; Fulbright \& Kraft 1999) or
187: a steady linear increase with decreasing [Fe/H] (e.g. Boesgaard et al. 1999;
188: Israelian et al. 2001; Takeda et al. 2002).
189:
190: As for the behavior of S among metal-poor stars,
191: it is not well understood because there are only four
192: previous works dealing with a larger number of stars:
193: Clegg, Lambert, \& Tomkin (1981) and
194: Fran{\c c}ois (1987, 1988) for a total number of 44 dwarfs
195: and one giant star; Prochaska et al. (2000) for nine thick
196: disk dwarfs.
197: These works analyzed S
198: abundances in the metallicity range, $-1.6$ \lsim [Fe/H] \lsim $+0.5$,
199: but mostly in [Fe/H] $> -1$.
200: The scarcity of the S abundance works is mainly due to the difficulty in
201: observing the S lines available to abundance analysis.
202: There are no strong lines
203: in the visual region suitable enough for analysis, but there are a few
204: relatively strong lines
205: of \SI (multiplet number 6) in the near-infrared region of 8670 -- 8700 \AA.
206: Among the \SI(6) lines, the strongest line at 8694.641 \AA\ and a weak line
207: at 8693.958 \AA\ are
208: free from blending with lines of other ions such as Si {\sc i} and \FeI,
209: while the remaining lines are blended with
210: such ions. Even the strongest line at 8694.6 \AA\ generally becomes very
211: weak for stars with effective temperature (\Teff) of
212: $T_{\rm eff} < $ 5500 K
213: and with metallicity of [Fe/H] $< -0.5$ (cf. Fran{\c c}ois 1987, 1988).
214:
215: Among these previous studies, \Francois (1988) suggested that [S/Fe] becomes
216: overabundant and constant in the halo stars with a value of $+0.6$ dex in
217: the metallicity range of $-1.6 <$[Fe/H] \lsim $-1$,
218: while Prochaska et al. (2000) found no indication of a significant
219: overabundance of [S/Fe] with a mean value of $+0.11\pm0.08$ dex
220: and no trend with metallicity in the
221: range of $-1.2$ \lsim [Fe/H] \lsim $-0.3$. Prochaska et al. (2000)
222: also postulated that a more careful, extensive stellar abundance analysis
223: of S in metal-poor stars is warranted since S is one of important elements
224: in quasar absorption-line studies.
225:
226: Very recently, Israelian \& Rebolo (2001) analyzed the S abundances in
227: six metal-poor stars with metallicities in the range of $-3 <$ [Fe/H] $<-0.2$
228: using observational data of \SI lines at 8694 \AA. Their results indicate
229: a monotonic increase of [S/Fe] as [Fe/H] decreases, reaching [S/Fe]$ \sim 0.7$
230: -- $0.8$ below [Fe/H] $= -2$.
231:
232: Takeda et al. (2002; hereafter Paper I) also very recently reported the
233: abundance analysis of S for very metal-poor giants with [Fe/H] \lsim $-1.5$
234: observed with the High Resolution Echelle Spectrometer (HIRES; Vogt 1994) of the
235: 10 m Keck I telescope as a byproduct in the oxygen
236: abundance study.
237: It is suggested that [S/Fe] increases linearly with decreasing [Fe/H],
238: which is just the same trend as found in Israelian \& Rebolo (2001),
239: and this behavior resembles that of O.
240: However, Paper I's results of S are yet preliminary and should be
241: superseded with those of this study.
242:
243: In this paper, in order to explore the behavior of S in the metallicity range
244: of $-3$ \lsim [Fe/H] \lsim $+0.5$, we carried out extensive
245: LTE abundance analyses of S for the six samples of very metal-poor stars
246: in Paper I observed with the Keck I HIRES (hereafter, the HIRES sample)
247: and of metal-poor dwarfs
248: observed at the Okayama Astrophysical Observatory (hereafter, the OAO sample).
249: We also re-analyze the data of dwarfs observed by
250: Clegg et al. (1981) and Fran{\c c}ois (1987, 1988) based on our system of
251: analysis to eliminate the systematic differences between our and the previous
252: analyses. We further perform the non-LTE (NLTE) abundance
253: analysis for
254: all these sample stars to examine how the NLTE abundances of S
255: behave and how the NLTE affects the LTE
256: abundance determination, since a NLTE analysis of S abundance in
257: metal-poor stars has not been done until now.
258:
259:
260: \section{Observations and Measurements} %% sec. 2
261:
262: The basic data of the sample stars of HIRES, OAO, Fran{\c c}ois (1987, 1988),
263: and Clegg et al. (1981) are presented in Table 1. Spectral types in the
264: third column were adopted from the SIMBAD database, operated at CDS, Strasbourg,
265: France. Parallaxes $\pi$ and apparent $V$ magnitudes in the fourth and
266: sixth columns, respectively, were taken from the {\it Hipparcos} Catalogue
267: (Perryman et al. 1997).
268:
269: The CCD spectroscopic observations of the HIRES sample were carried out
270: in 1997 and 1999 using HIRES on the Keck I telescope for the wavelength
271: range, 6330 \AA \lsim $\lambda$ \lsim 8760 \AA, with resolution $ R = 45000$
272: and 60000, respectively. The journal of observations is presented in Table 1
273: of Paper I, and the data reduction was performed with the MAKEE package
274: developed by one of us (T.A. Barlow) for HIRES data. The reader is asked
275: to refer to Paper I for the details of observations and data reduction.
276: The S/N ratios in the wavelength region around the \SI lines at 8694 \AA\
277: are estimated to be 190 -- 410 in the sample stars. The low values are
278: mainly due to the difficulty of complete removal of fringes in the spectra.
279: The observed spectra in the vicinity of the \SI lines are shown in Figures
280: 1a -- 1f.
281:
282: The OAO sample of 25 dwarfs and the Moon were observed in 1997 and 1998
283: using the Coude spectrograph of the 188 cm telescope at the Okayama Astrophysical
284: Observatory (OAO), National Astronomical Observatory of Japan.
285: The wavelength range observed is $\lambda\lambda$ 8400 -- 8830 \AA, and
286: the resolution $ R \sim 24500 $ at 8700 \AA. The CCD data were reduced
287: with the IRAF\footnote{IRAF is distributed by the National Optical
288: Astronomy Observatories, which is operated by the Association of
289: Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under cooperative agreement
290: with the National Science Foundation.} package, following the standard
291: procedure of extracting one-dimensional spectra. The S/N ratios around
292: 8700 \AA\ are in the range of 120 -- 400, but mostly between 200 -- 350.
293:
294: Equivalent widths (\Wlam) of the two blend-free \SI lines
295: at 8693.958 \AA\ and 8694.641 \AA\ in spectra of the HIRES sample were
296: measured by Gaussian fitting
297: (or by direct integration if necessary) using the {\it splot\/} task of IRAF,
298: and are listed in the HIRES sample entry of Table 5.
299: It turned out that
300: our \Wlam values of the \SI 8694.641 \AA\ excellently agree with those
301: measured in Paper I for the sample stars, except for the giant star HD 88609.
302: While the \Wlam value for HD 88609 was estimated to be 1.9 m\AA\ as an
303: uncertain
304: value in Paper I, it should be replaced with our measurement ($< 2.2$ m\AA)
305: as an upper limit corresponding to the noise level with a
306: S/N ratio of $\sim$ 230, because the \SI
307: 8694.641 \AA\ line is not detected at this noise level, as seen in Figure 1c.
308: Since the spectral resolution $ R$ of data of the OAO sample is not
309: high enough to
310: separate two \SI lines clearly, two blended \SI lines were regarded as
311: one line and its \Wlam was measured by a direct integration using the
312: {\it splot\/} task of IRAF. The results are given in the seventh column
313: of Table 4. We also measured \Wlam of six \FeI lines in the OAO
314: sample by Gaussian fitting
315: using the {\it splot\/} task of IRAF, and listed them in Table 3.
316: Values of \Wlam measured by \Francois (1987, 1988) and Clegg et al. (1981)
317: for two \SI lines are summarized in Table 5, and also those by
318: \Francois (1987, 1988) for two or three \FeI lines in Table 3.
319: The \Wlam data for \FeI lines are not available in Clegg et al. (1981).
320:
321: Our OAO sample overlaps with nine stars among the samples of
322: \Francois (1987, 1988) and Clegg et al. (1981), so that
323: the sample of this study consists of six giants and 61 dwarfs
324: (62 dwarfs, including the Sun) in total.
325:
326:
327: \section{Abundance Analyses} %sec 3
328:
329: Abundance analyses were carried out using Kurucz's (1993) ATLAS9
330: line-blanketed model atmospheres, based on which the atmospheric models
331: of individual stars were constructed by interpolation in terms of
332: atmospheric parameters of effective temperature \Teff,
333: surface gravity \logg, and metallicity [Fe/H].
334: In this section we describe the determinations of atmospheric parameters
335: and the analyses of Fe and S abundances with LTE and NLTE calculations.
336:
337: \subsection{Atmospheric Parameters} %sec 3.1
338:
339: \subsubsection{Reddening Estimates} %sec 3.1.1
340:
341: While interstellar reddening $E(B-V)$ affects estimates of
342: effective temperatures based on color indices, it has been usually
343: assumed that no reddening corrections need be applied to the stars within
344: 100 pc. However, this assumption could break down for some stars,
345: with significant reddening (\gsim 0.01 mag), even if they are within
346: 100 pc, because the maps of reddening in the Galaxy show a very patchy
347: distribution of reddening at all galactic latitudes (Burstein \& Heiles
348: 1978, 1982).
349: Because $E(B-V)$=0.10 mag has been found to alter the derived \Teff
350: by 400 -- 550 K for such cool stars as in our sample (Laird, Carney,
351: \& Latham 1988), $E(B-V)$=0.01 may change \Teff by 40 -- 55 K.
352: Our test calculations confirmed these changes in \Teff.
353: Consequently, we decided to estimate $E(B-V)$ for {\it all} our sample stars
354: regardless of their distances.
355:
356: Almost all reddening corrections had been made based on the maps of
357: Burstein \& Heiles (1978, 1982) until 1998 when a new, modern source of
358: reddening was published by Schlegel, Finkbeiner, \& Davis (1998).
359: They constructed the full-sky maps of the Galactic dust using the
360: far-infrared data observed by the {\it Infrared Astronomy Satellite}
361: ({\it IRAS}) and the Diffuse Infrared Background Experiment (DIRBE)
362: on board the {\it COBE} satellite. They demonstrated that the new dust
363: maps predict reddening with an accuracy of 16 \%, which is twice as
364: accurate as that estimated from the Burstein \& Heiles' maps in regions
365: of low and moderate reddening. Hence we used the new dust maps of
366: Schlegel et al. (1998) to estimate $E(B-V)$ of our sample stars.
367: After we estimated a total reddening $E(B-V)_{\rm T}$ in the direction
368: of a given star, the $E(B-V)$ to the star at distance {\it D} pc was
369: calculated with the same relation as employed by Beers et al. (2000),
370: $E(B-V)= E(B-V)_{\rm T}\{1 -$ exp[$-|D$ sin {\it b}$|$/{\it h}]\}, where
371: {\it b} is the Galactic latitude and {\it h} is a scale height of 125 pc
372: assumed for the dust layer. Distances were estimated from the {\it Hipparcos}
373: parallaxes $\pi$ listed in Table 1.
374: Resulting $E(B-V)$ larger than 0.01 mag are given in the fifth column of
375: Table 1 and used for determinations of \Teff and \logg.
376:
377: As clearly seen from these results, reddening should be examined
378: for stars even at close distances. Note a typical example of HD 190248
379: at a distance of $D=6.11 $ pc ($\pi=163.73$ mas) with a reddening of
380: $E(B-V)=0.02$ mag in the \Francois' (1987) sample.
381:
382:
383:
384: \subsubsection{Effective Temperatures} %sec 3.1.2
385:
386: Effective temperatures of the HIRES sample, one giant star HD 111721,
387: and one dwarf star HD 182572
388: were derived using the empirical calibration of Alonso, Arribas, \&
389: Mart\'inez-Roger (1999a) for $(V-K)$ index and [Fe/H], which is based on the
390: infrared flux method (IRFM). The observed $(V-K)$ indices for these 8 stars
391: were figured out by adopting $K$ magnitudes from Alonso, Arribas,
392: \& Mart\'inez-Roger (1994) for HD 44007, HD 84937, HD 111721, and HD 182572,
393: from Alonso, Arribas, \& Mart\'inez-Roger (1998) for HD 88609, HD 165195, and
394: HD 184266, and from Carney (1983) for HD 175305. Resulting values are given
395: in Table 1. These $(V-K)$ indices were corrected for reddening using a
396: standard relation, $E(V-K)= 2.72E(B-V)$, and applied to the empirical calibration.
397: With regard to one more parameter [Fe/H] in the empirical calibration,
398: we adopted the values where the second decimal place
399: is rounded off to 5 or 0, and listed them in the fourth column of Table 2.
400: The original values for these [Fe/H] are presented in the eleventh column
401: of Table 1 together with the literature entered in the last column.
402:
403: Effective temperatures of the OAO, \Francois (1987, 1988), and
404: Clegg et al. (1981) sample stars were estimated using the IRFM-based
405: empirical calibration (Eq. 9) of Alonso, Arribas, \& Mart\'inez-Roger (1996b) for
406: Str\"omgren ($b - y$) and $c_{1}$ indices and [Fe/H]. The Str\"omgren indices
407: were adopted from Hauck and Mermilliod (1998) and listed in the ninth and
408: tenth columns of Table 1. We used the rounded-off values of [Fe/H] the same
409: as the case of HIRES sample. Reddening corrections were applied to these
410: Str\"omgren indices making use of the adopted $E(B-V)$ and the well known
411: relations of $E(b-y)=0.73E(B-V)$ and $E(c_{1})=0.15E(B-V)$ (Crawford 1973).
412:
413: The resulting \Teff for all our sample stars are rounded off to the second
414: digit (10 K) and summarized in the second column of Table 2.
415: The \Teff determined by Alonso et al. (1999b) and
416: Alonso et al. (1996a) for giants and dwarfs, respectively, are listed in
417: the sixth column for comparison. The differences $\delta$\Teff $=$
418: \Teff(Ours) $-$ \Teff(Alonso et al's) are also given in the seventh column.
419: Inspection of $\delta$\Teff demonstrates that our \Teff values
420: agree well with those of Alonso et al mostly to within $\pm 100$ K, while
421: discrepancies larger than 100 K are found in five stars.
422: This good agreement is reasonably expected since both our and the
423: Alonso et al's \Teff are based on the same IRFM framework.
424:
425:
426: \subsubsection{Surface Gravities} %sec 3.1.3
427:
428: Surface gravities (log $g$) were derived following the standard procedures,
429: based on data of \Teff, $V$ magnitude, parallax, $E(B-V)$,
430: bolometric magnitude, and the theoretical evolutionary track.
431:
432: First, we calculated the absolute visual magnitudes ($M_{\rm V}$) from
433: data of $V$ and {\it Hipparcos} parallaxes ($\pi$) adopting a $V$-band
434: absorption $A_{V}=3.1E(B-V)$. We then separately estimated bolometric
435: corrections of $V$, BC($V$), for giants and dwarfs.
436: The BC($V$) for giants were calculated for \Teff and [Fe/H] adopted in
437: Table 2 using the Alonso et al.'s (1999a) calibrations
438: (Eq. 17 or 18) which are presented as a function of \Teff and [Fe/H].
439: On the other hand, BC($V$) for dwarfs were obtained for \Teff and
440: [Fe/H] adopted, interpolating the grid of BC($V$) for log $g~=4.0$
441: models calculated by Alonso, Arribas, \& Mart\'inez-Roger (1995).
442: Resulting BC($V$) were applied to estimate of absolute
443: bolometric magnitudes $M_{\rm bol}$ which are listed in Table 1.
444:
445: The masses of stars were evaluated for the adopted \Teff and $M_{\rm bol}$
446: on the theoretical evolutionary tracks of the Italian group. For the
447: sample of giants and the very metal-poor dwarf HD 84937, we adopted the
448: evolutionary tracks with solar-scaled mixture of abundances and initial
449: chemical compositions computed by Girardi et al.
450: (1996: [$Y=0.230, Z=0.0001$] track for HD 84937, 88609, and 165195)
451: and Girardi et al. (2000: [$Y=0.23, Z=0.0004$] for HD 44007 and 184266;
452: [$Y=0.23, Z=0.001$] for HD 111721 and 175305).
453: In the estimates for the masses of HD 44007 and HD 165195, we failed to
454: find the evolutionary tracks corresponding to the positions with \Teff and
455: $M_{\rm bol}$ on the HR diagram, so we assumed 0.6 $M_{\odot}$ for
456: these two stars. This assumption is probably adequate since a mass range
457: indicated from masses obtained for our sample of remaining giants is
458: 0.6 -- 1.0 $M_{\odot}$.
459:
460: For the sample of remaining dwarfs, the masses were inferred on the
461: theoretical evolutionary tracks computed by Salasnich et al. (2000).
462: We used their evolutionary tracks with $\alpha$-enhanced mixture of
463: abundances and initial chemical compositions of [$Y=0.250, Z=0.008$],
464: [$Y=0.273, Z=0.019$], and [$Y=0.320, Z=0.04$] for our sample stars
465: with [Fe/H] $< -0.1$, $-0.1 \leq$ [Fe/H] $\leq +0.1$, and [Fe/H] $> +0.1$,
466: respectively.
467:
468: In these procedures of \logg estimate, we adopted the following
469: values for the Sun: $T_{\rm eff},_{\odot} = 5780$ K, \logg$_{\odot} = 4.44$,
470: and $M_{\rm bol},_{\odot} = 4.74$. The log $g$ values thus derived are
471: summarized in the third column of Table 2.
472:
473:
474: \subsubsection{Microturbulences} %sec 3.1.4
475:
476: Microturbulences ($\xi$) of the stars in the HIRES sample were determined
477: based on \Wlam data of \FeI lines measured in Paper I, eliminating
478: any trend of abundances with line strength. The values of $\xi$ for all
479: samples of dwarfs were calculated using the empirical relation,
480:
481: \vskip 0.5cm
482:
483: $\xi$ (\kms)$ = 1.25 + 8 \times 10^{-4}$(\Teff$ - 6000) - 1.3($\logg$ - 4.5)$,
484:
485: \vskip 0.5cm
486: which was found by Edvardsson et al. (1993).
487: As for the $\xi$ of the giant star HD 111721, it was taken from Ryan \&
488: Lambert (1995) because this relation cannot be applied for giants.
489: Resulting values of $\xi$ are listed in the fifth column of Table 2.
490:
491:
492:
493: \subsection{LTE Analyses} %sec 3.2
494:
495: We used the WIDTH9 program written by R. L. Kurucz to determine the LTE
496: abundances of S and Fe based on the adopted model atmospheres.
497:
498: \subsubsection{Fe Abundances} %sec 3.2.1
499:
500:
501: The Fe abundances of the HIRES sample were derived from both \FeI and \FeII
502: lines by analyzing their \Wlam given in Paper I, while those of the OAO and
503: \Francois (1987, 1988) samples were obtained from the measured \Wlam of
504: selected \FeI lines. The {\it gf}\ values compiled by Kurucz (1995) were
505: used. The enhancement factor, $f_{6}$, which should be multiplied by the
506: classical van der Waals damping constant, was estimated to be 1.2 for \FeI
507: lines with lower excitation potentials ($\chi$) less than 2.6 eV using
508: the empirical calibration by Simmons \& Blackwell (1982), and
509: $f_{6} = 1.4$ was adopted from Edvardsson et al. (1993) for lines with
510: $\chi > 2.6$ eV.
511:
512: The results of Fe abundances yielded from the HIRES sample are presented
513: in Table 6 as [Fe~{\sc i}/H]$_{\rm LTE}$ and [Fe~{\sc ii}/H]$_{\rm LTE}$,
514: which were calculated relative to the solar value of log~Fe$_{\odot} =
515: 7.51$ (Holweger, Kock, \& Bard 1995). Hereafter, we will separately deal
516: with the abundances obtained from \FeI and \FeII lines for the HIRES sample.
517:
518: Resulting Fe abundances of the OAO and \Francois (1987, 1988) samples
519: are summarized in Table 3 together with \Wlam, the {\it gf} values, and
520: the lower excitation potentials ($\chi$). The averages of log~Fe are also
521: listed as log~Fe {\sc i}$_{\rm LTE}$ in Table 7. The values of
522: [Fe~{\sc i}/H]$_{\rm LTE}$ of the OAO sample were calculated relative to
523: our solar value of log~Fe$_{\odot} = 7.41$ to eliminate the systematic
524: errors due to uncertainties of the log~$gf$ and $f_{6}$ values, while
525: those of the \Francois (1987, 1988) sample relative to log~Fe$_{\odot} =
526: 7.51$. Those of Clegg et al. (1981) were simply adopted from the
527: values analyzed by them and are listed in Table 7.
528: The [Fe~{\sc i}/H]$_{\rm LTE}$ of the giant star HD 111721 is included
529: in Table 6.
530:
531:
532: \subsubsection{S Abundances} %sec 3.2.2
533:
534: The S abundances (log S) were calculated adopting the $gf$ values compiled
535: by Kurucz (1995): log~$gf = +0.080$ for the 8694.641 \AA\ line and
536: log~$gf = -0.510$ for the 8693.958 \AA\ line. The lower excitation
537: potential for both lines is $\chi = 7.87$ eV, which means that the \SI
538: lines analyzed are high excitation lines and so the abundances
539: derived from them are sensitive to errors of \Teff rather than \logg
540: especially when the lines are considerably weaker (\lsim 20 m\AA)
541: and \Teff is cooler than about 5500 K. The enhancement factor $f_{6} =
542: 2.5$ was adopted from Feltzing \& Gonzalez (2001).
543:
544: The log~S of the OAO sample stars were derived from \Wlam of the blended \SI
545: line feature which is regarded as one line, and are shown in the last
546: column of Table 4 and also in Table 7 as log~S$_{\rm LTE}$.
547: The S abundances of the HIRES sample and the samples of \Francois
548: (1987, 1988) and Clegg et al. (1981) were obtained from the two \SI lines,
549: and are listed in Table 5. The averaged abundances for the samples of
550: \Francois (1987, 1988) and Clegg et al. (1981) are also given in Table 7
551: as log~S$_{\rm LTE}$.
552:
553: The values of [S/H]$_{\rm LTE}$ for the HIRES sample and the samples of
554: \Francois (1987, 1988) and Clegg et al. (1981) were calculated relative
555: to the solar value of log~S$_{\odot} = 7.21 $ (Anders \& Grevesse 1989),
556: while those of the OAO sample were calculated relative to our solar
557: value of log~S$_{\odot} = 7.22$.
558: These results are listed in Tables 6 and 7 for the HIRES sample and
559: the giant star HD 111721 and for all the remaining dwarfs, respectively.
560:
561: The synthetic line profiles of \SI lines at 8693.9 \AA\ and 8694.6 \AA\
562: were computed for the HIRES sample stars using the adopted S abundances,
563: and overplotted in Figures 1a -- 1f. Except for the upper limit case
564: of HD 88609, the synthetic profiles of \SI 8694.6 \AA\ line for the
565: remaining stars fit well with the observed ones, while the observed
566: profile of HD 84937 (Figure 1b) slightly disagrees with the synthetic one
567: on the blue side of the profile which seems asymmetric relative to the
568: synthetic one. The line profile of this star may be influenced by a
569: rather low S/N ratio ($\sim 230$) and incomplete removal of the fringe
570: pattern. Although we confidently regard the absorption feature
571: at 8694.6 \AA\ observed in HD 84937 as the \SI line, we should confirm the
572: line with a follow-up observation.
573:
574:
575: \subsubsection{[S/Fe]} %sec 3.2.3
576:
577: The values of [S/Fe] for the HIRES sample were computed from the
578: above-obtained [Fe~{\sc i}/H]$_{\rm LTE}$, [Fe~{\sc ii}/H]$_{\rm LTE}$,
579: and [S/H]$_{\rm LTE}$, and are given as [S/Fe~{\sc i}]$_{\rm LTE}$ and
580: [S/Fe~{\sc ii}]$_{\rm LTE}$ in the fifth and sixth columns of Table 6,
581: respectively, together with the [S/Fe~{\sc i}]$_{\rm LTE}$ of the giant
582: star HD 111721. The error bars are discussed in \S 3.4.
583:
584: In Table 7, the [S/Fe~{\sc i}]$_{\rm LTE}$ results are listed in
585: the sixth column for the dwarf samples of OAO, \Francois (1987, 1988),
586: and Clegg et al. (1981).
587:
588:
589:
590: \subsection{NLTE Analyses} %sec 3.3
591:
592: The NLTE abundances of S were computed for the two \SI lines following the
593: same procedures as described in Takada-Hidai \& Takeda (1996).
594: The grids of NLTE corrections were constructed for the parameter ranges of
595: \Teff $=4500$ -- $6500$ K, \logg$ = 1.0$ -- $5.0$, and
596: [Fe/H]$ = 0.0$ -- $-3.0$, assuming a constant microturbulence
597: of 2.0 \kms\ and changing enhancement of S abundances.
598: The grids for \SI 8693.9 and \SI 8694.6 lines are presented in Tables A1
599: and A2 in the Appendix, respectively. The NLTE corrections for the S
600: abundance defined as
601: $\Delta({\rm S}) \equiv$ log~S$_{\rm NLTE}$ $-$ log~S$_{\rm LTE}$
602: were evaluated on these grids for two \SI lines of the HIRES sample and
603: the samples of \Francois (1987, 1988) and Clegg et al. (1981) using their
604: measured \Wlam. As for the OAO sample, since the \SI lines are blended,
605: we computed the \Wlam of each \SI line corresponding to the derived
606: log~S$_{\rm LTE}$ and used them to estimate $\Delta({\rm S})$.
607: The average values of each $\Delta({\rm S})$ are given in the seventh column
608: of Tables 6 and 7 for the HIRES sample and the giant star HD 111721
609: and for the sample of dwarfs, respectively.
610:
611: The NLTE abundances of Fe were calculated for [Fe {\sc i}/H]$_{\rm LTE}$
612: in all our samples using the polynomial relation derived by
613: Israelian et al. (2001), which is based on the NLTE work of
614: Th\'evenin \& Idiart (1999). The results are shown as
615: [Fe {\sc i}/H]$_{\rm NLTE}$ in Tables 6 and 7.
616:
617: The values of [S/Fe {\sc i}]$_{\rm NLTE}$ were computed
618: based on the above-obtained [S/H]$_{\rm LTE}$, $\Delta({\rm S})$,
619: and [Fe {\sc i}/H]$_{\rm NLTE}$, and are summarized in Tables 6 and 7
620: for each sample.
621:
622: Since Fe abundances inferred from \FeII lines are separately dealt with
623: in the HIRES sample, the results of [S/Fe {\sc ii}]$_{\rm NLTE}$
624: are also entered in Table 6. Here we applied the values of
625: [Fe {\sc ii}/H]$_{\rm LTE}$ to those of [S/H]$_{\rm NLTE}$ to get these
626: results because an LTE Fe abundance deduced from \FeII has been found
627: to be free from NLTE effects and reliable enough as suggested, for example,
628: by Lambert et al. (1996) in their abundance study of RR Lyrae stars
629: and by Th\'evenin \& Idiart (1999) and Gratton
630: et al. (1999) in studies of the NLTE effect on \FeII in metal-poor stars.
631:
632:
633: \subsection{Error Analyses} %sec 3.4
634:
635: Although there are many factors which yield errors in the abundances,
636: we focus only on the main factors of uncertainties of \Teff, \logg, and $\xi$.
637:
638: The uncertainties of \Teff for all our samples were estimated
639: to be $\Delta$\Teff$= \pm 100$ K, taking into account the \Teff differences
640: ($\delta$\Teff) shown in Table 2, since most of our \Teff values agree well
641: with those of Alonso et al. (1996a, 1999b) within $\pm 100$ K.
642:
643: The uncertainties of \logg are mainly caused by errors in \Teff,
644: stellar mass, and $M_{\rm bol}$.
645: Test calculations have found that $\Delta$\Teff$= 100$ K corresponds to
646: $\Delta$\logg $\sim 0.06$ dex. Errors in the mass are introduced from a
647: selection of theoretical evolutionary tracks for fixed \Teff and
648: $M_{\rm bol}$ (i.e. luminosity). Mass errors of $\sim 0.05$M$_{\odot}$
649: estimated on the evolutionary tracks corresponds to $\Delta$\logg $\sim
650: 0.05$ dex. Errors of $M_{\rm bol}$ essentially come from the parallax errors.
651: The typical error of 3 \% for the parallax yields $\Delta$\logg $\sim
652: 0.06$ dex. The quadratic sum of these uncertainties in \logg amounts to
653: $\pm 0.1$ dex. Allowing 0.05 dex for other possible error sources in
654: the estimation procedures, we simply added this value to the quadratic sum
655: and adopted $\Delta$\logg $= \pm 0.15$ dex as the total uncertainty.
656:
657: The uncertainties of microturbulences $\xi$ for the HIRES sample were
658: deduced from test calculations to examine whether \FeI abundances show
659: any trend with line strength for different values of $\xi$.
660: Since $\xi$ for the samples of OAO, \Francois, and Clegg et al.
661: were estimated using the empirical relation of Edvardsson et al. (1993),
662: the uncertainty of $\Delta\xi \simeq 0.22$ \kms\ was estimated for the
663: above uncertainties of \Teff and \logg. The rms scatter for this relation
664: was suggested to be about 0.3 \kms\ by Edvardsson et al. (1993), so that
665: the total uncertainty became $\pm 0.37$ \kms. We then adopted
666: $\Delta\xi = \pm 0.5$ \kms\ as the total uncertainty allowing for other
667: possible errors.
668:
669: The abundance errors of S and Fe for the HIRES sample and HD 111721 were
670: calculated for these uncertainties, and are given in Table 6 as the error
671: bars on the [S/Fe] values. The abundance errors for the remaining dwarfs
672: sample were also evaluated and listed in Table 8. We regard the combined
673: error of $\pm 0.16$ dex as a typical error for [S/Fe {\sc i}] values in
674: the sample of dwarfs.
675:
676:
677:
678: \section{Results and Discussion} %sec 4
679:
680:
681: The results of abundance analyses of S and Fe are summarized in Tables 6
682: and 7 for six stars of the HIRES sample and the giant star HD 111721 and
683: for 61 dwarfs, including the Sun, respectively.
684: Since nine stars of the OAO sample overlap with those of the samples of
685: \Francois (1987, 1988; four stars) and Clegg et al. (1981; five stars),
686: the abundance results of the OAO sample were preferentially adopted for
687: these stars. We will describe these results below and discuss
688: the results for S and Fe abundances of all our samples.
689:
690: \subsection{NLTE Corrections} %sec 4.1
691:
692: While the NLTE corrections of the S abundances, $\Delta$(S), are found
693: to be in the range of $-0.09$ -- 0.00 dex for all of our sample,
694: most of them concentrate on the range of $-0.01$ -- $-0.03$ dex.
695: Consequently, neglect of NLTE effect does not produce significant errors
696: leading to the wrong conclusions of behavior of S.
697: On the other hand, as seen from the comparison of [Fe {\sc i}/H]$_{\rm LTE}$
698: with [Fe {\sc i}/H]$_{\rm NLTE}$, NLTE corrections of \FeI abundances are
699: found to be considerably larger with the range of $-0.09$ -- $+0.29$ dex.
700: The negative correction values in the range of $-0.09$ -- $-0.02$ dex are
701: assigned only to the nine metal-rich stars, but all positive ones are
702: for our sample of metal-poor stars, which distribute mostly in the range
703: of $+0.05$ -- $+0.15$ dex and $+0.20$ -- $+0.29$ dex among the samples of
704: dwarfs and giants, respectively.
705: These NLTE corrections for \FeI abundance yield significant changes in
706: [S/Fe {\sc i}], so that they should be examined when we investigate the
707: behavior of [S/Fe {\sc i}] against [Fe {\sc i}/H]. However, we should
708: note that Gratton et al. (1999) computed NLTE corrections of \FeI abundances
709: for dwarfs (\logg = 4.5) and low gravity (\logg = 1.5 and 2.25) stars in
710: the metallicity range of $-3$ -- $0$ dex, and concluded that NLTE
711: corrections are very small (mostly $< 0.05$ dex) in dwarfs of \Teff less
712: than 7000 K, while those in low gravity stars are less than 0.4 dex for
713: \Teff $< 6000$ K and the metallicity range of $-1$ -- $-3$ dex.
714: Using their Figure 9, NLTE corrections for our giants sample were estimated
715: to be less than about 0.15 dex, which are systematically smaller than those
716: adopted in this study. Since [Fe/H] values of cool metal-poor stars are
717: mainly determined from \FeI lines, further examinations of NLTE effect on
718: \FeI abundance are worth performing.
719:
720: As mentioned in section \S 3.3, the abundances derived from \FeII lines
721: can be regarded as being reliably free from NLTE effects. Hence analyses
722: of \FeII lines are recommended whenever such data are available.
723:
724:
725: \subsection{Behavior of [S/Fe]} %sec 4.2
726:
727: To clarify the behavior of S in the metallicity range $- 3$ \lsim
728: [Fe/H] \lsim $+0.5$, we plotted [S/Fe]$_{\rm LTE}$ and [S/Fe]$_{\rm NLTE}$
729: against [Fe/H]$_{\rm LTE}$ and [Fe/H]$_{\rm NLTE}$ in Figures 2 and 3,
730: respectively.
731:
732: We first deal with the LTE behavior of [S/Fe] shown in Figure 2.
733: As for [S/Fe {\sc i}] in all our samples of dwarfs and giants,
734: it shows an increasing trend as [Fe {\sc i}/H] decreases.
735: A slope of this trend is calculated to be $-0.27 \pm0.15$
736: %%
737: (where $\pm0.15$ are 1 $\sigma$ errors, and these errors are
738: also given to the slopes yielded from a least-square linear fit in other
739: cases)
740: %%
741: by a least-square linear fit for all the [S/Fe {\sc i}] results derived
742: from the atmospheric models adopted in this study, except for an upper
743: limit of HD 88609. The upper limit results of HD 88609 are not considered
744: for the least-square linear fits in both cases of LTE and NLTE.
745: This linear fit gives [S/Fe {\sc i}] $\sim 0.7$ at [Fe {\sc i}/H]$=-2.5$,
746: while [S/Fe {\sc i}]$\sim 1.2 $ dex of HD 165195 deviates from the fit by
747: about 0.5 dex around the same metallicity. The high value of HD 165195
748: seems to occur from the adopted \Teff of 4190 K which is on the lowest
749: boundary of a range of \Teff (4131 -- 4507 K) previously determined
750: (see Paper I). This low \Teff produces the high S abundance derived from
751: high-excitation lines and the lower \FeI abundance which breaks ionization
752: equilibrium between \FeI and \FeII by a factor of 0.5 dex.
753: Our test calculations showed that \logg\ should be lowered by about 0.5
754: to obtain ionization equilibrium between \FeI and \FeII with abundance
755: differences of 0.3 dex. However, such low value of \logg $\sim 0.5$ may
756: not be valid since it is inferred from the mass of $\sim 0.2 M_{\odot}$,
757: which seems unreasonable for HD 165195, when \Teff and $M_{\rm bol}$ are
758: fixed. If we calculate the [S/Fe {\sc i}] value based on the atmospheric
759: model determined by Pilachowsky et al. (1996) and adopted in Paper I,
760: this results in $+0.58 \pm 0.28$ dex as listed in the Pap.I entry of Table 6,
761: and plotted with a filled asterisk in Figure 2. Adopting this Pap.I result
762: of [S/Fe {\sc i}], a least-square linear fit yields a slope of $-0.23
763: \pm0.13$, which is almost the same as the above-obtained slope of $-0.27$.
764:
765: The [S/Fe {\sc ii}] values of the HIRES sample are also plotted in Figure 2
766: with half-filled diamond. In a case of HD 165195, the value listed in
767: the Pap.I entry of Table 6 is also plotted with an open asterisk, which
768: is located very close to the point inferred from this study (the Ours entry
769: of Table 6). Combining these HIRES data with the [S/Fe {\sc i}] data of
770: OAO, \Francois (1987, 1988), and Clegg et al. (1981), it is found that
771: [S/Fe] shows a continuous increase with a slope of $-0.23 \pm0.13$ as
772: [Fe/H] decreases. This trend supports the one found in the case of
773: [S/Fe {\sc i}].
774:
775: Now, we inspect the NLTE behavior of [S/Fe] depicted in Figure 3.
776: Because the NLTE anaysis seems to be more reliable than the LTE one,
777: we preferentially adopt the NLTE results as our final results in this study.
778: As concerns [S/Fe {\sc i}] of all our dwarfs and giants samples, it shows
779: the same trend as in the above LTE case. However, since significant NLTE
780: corrections to \FeI abundances make \FeI abundances of metal-poor stars
781: higher and [S/Fe {\sc i}] lower, the slope becomes $-0.17 \pm0.15$, which
782: is flatter than the LTE case, as illustrated by the least-square linear fit
783: drawn in Figure 3 with dashed line.
784: If we consider the [S/Fe {\sc ii}] values of the HIRES sample together
785: with [S/Fe {\sc i}] data of OAO, \Francois (1987, 1988), and Clegg et al.
786: (1981), we find a slope of $-0.19 \pm0.14$.
787: Both slopes remain almost unchanged for the [S/Fe] points in the Pap.I entry
788: of Table 6 for the case of HD 165195.
789:
790: Judging from the trends of LTE and NLTE behaviors of [S/Fe]
791: against [Fe/H] observed in all our sample stars, we may safely conclude
792: that [S/Fe] increases progressively and continuously with a slope of
793: $\sim -0.2$ as [Fe/H] decreases from $+0.5$ dex to $-3$ dex, though
794: the observed data are distributed with a range of scatter of
795: $0.3$ -- $0.5$ dex. Our conclusion is qualitatively consistent with that
796: of Israelian \& Rebolo (2001). They found that [S/Fe] shows an increase
797: trend with the slope of $-0.46 \pm0.06$ which is roughly twice as
798: steep as those found in our sample stars.
799: If we combine the results of six stars observed by Israelian \& Rebolo
800: (2001) with those of our samples and calculate the slope of increase trend
801: of [S/Fe {\sc i}], we obtain the slope of $-0.25 \pm0.17$,
802: %%
803: which is significant at the 1.5 $\sigma$ level.
804: This least-square linear fit is depicted with solid line in Figure 3,
805: together with Israelian \& Rebolo's (2001) data plotted with a double circle.
806: The same slope of $-0.25 \pm0.15$, which is significant at the 1.7 $\sigma$
807: level, is also derived from the combination of
808: data of Israelian \& Rebolo (2001) and our data which include the results of
809: [S/Fe {\sc ii}] instead of [S/Fe {\sc i}] in the HIRES sample.
810: Although this slope, $-0.25$, of the trend is significant only
811: at the 1.5 -- 1.7 $\sigma$ level and
812: still flatter than that of Israelian \& Rebolo (2001),
813: it is more favorable to our above conclusion.
814: As for a steeper slope found by Israelian \& Rebolo (2001), which is
815: significant at the 7.7 $\sigma$ level, it might be influenced by a bias in
816: a smaller number of their sample (26 stars in their Figure 3) in
817: comparison with our sample of 67 stars [73 stars in our Figure 3, including
818: 6 stars of Israelian \& Rebolo (2001)]. A slope is essentially determined by
819: [S/Fe] in halo stars, so that further observations of a larger sample of
820: halo stars are indispensable to establish an increase trend of [S/Fe] with
821: a trustworthy value of slope.
822: It is also interesting that the slope of $-0.25$ is comparable to
823: those ($\sim -0.3$) found for [O/Fe] (e.g. Paper I; Israelian et al. 2001).
824: %%
825: As discussed below, since O and S
826: are volatile elements, it may be plausible to expect that they show a similar
827: behavior against metallicity, [Fe/H].
828:
829: On the contrary, the linearly increasing trend of [S/Fe] is not consistent
830: with the conclusion suggested by \Francois (1988) that [S/Fe] forms a
831: plateau in halo stars. His conclusion seems to be affected by a bias in
832: that his sample does not contain halo stars with [Fe/H] \lsim $-1.5$.
833:
834: Now, we briefly discuss our results in relation with the theoretical
835: studies of chemical evolution of the Galaxy.
836: Theoretical predictions based on standard SNe II and Ia models may not explain
837: our linearly increasing trend of [S/Fe] in the range of [Fe/H] \lsim $-1$
838: (e.g. Chiappini et al. 1999; Goswami \& Prantzos 2000), however, it
839: may be possible to explain the observed trend of [S/Fe] if we consider
840: the explosive nucleosynthesis in ``hypernovae'', i.e., SNe with
841: very large explosion energies of $E=$(10 -- 100)$\times 10^{51}$ ergs,
842: proposed by Nomoto et al. (2001) and studied in detail by
843: Nakamura et al. (2001). Nakamura et al. (2001) carried out detailed
844: nucleosynthesis calculations for hypernovae with these energies as well
845: as for ordinary core-collapse SNe with $E=1 \times 10^{51}$ ergs
846: for comparison. They found that a larger amount of S is synthesized
847: by oxygen burning in hypernovae, which leads to higher [S/Fe] ratios to
848: be observed in metal-poor halo stars if hypernovae occurred in the early
849: phase of the Galaxy evolution.
850: For example, inspection of Table 2 or 3 of Nakamura et al. (2001)
851: suggests that the ratios of [S/Fe] \gsim 1 may be attained in the
852: ejecta of hypernovae with $E$ \gsim $10^{52}$ ergs in the metallicity
853: range of [Fe/H] $< -1$. They also found that even one hypernova can
854: produce 2--10 times more Fe than normal core-collapse SNe, which
855: makes [$\alpha$-elements/Fe] ratios smaller. Consequently, if such metal-poor
856: halo stars, as included in our sample, formed from some hypernova ejecta,
857: the iron mass of these stars should be smaller by factors of \gsim 10 than
858: those presented, for instance, in Table 2 to explain the [S/Fe] trend
859: observed in this study and Israelian \& Rebolo (2001).
860: As discussed for the case of abundances in the black hole binary GRO
861: J1655$-$40 by Nakamura et al. (2001), there may be some possible ways to
862: produce the ejecta with smaller Fe mass using hypernova models with a
863: certain mass cut at large $M_r$ (mass included in the radius $r$ of the
864: precollapse star) or with asymmetric explosions such as have a jet. In
865: addition to these possibilities, the mixing and dilution of ejecta to the
866: interstellar medium plays an important role in determining the metallicity
867: of halo stars. Nakamura et al. (1999) suggested that the [Fe/H] of halo
868: stars are mainly determined by the mass of interstellar hydrogen mixed with
869: the ejecta of the relevant SN II, and that the mass of such interstellar
870: hydrogen varies by an order of magnitude and is larger for both cases
871: of the larger explosion energy of SN and the larger Str\"omgren radius of the
872: progenitor. A more detailed discussion on the justification of the
873: increasing trend of [S/Fe] has been made with relation to
874: hypernovae/supernovae by Israelian \& Rebolo (2001).
875:
876: Another possibile explanation for the increasing trend of [S/Fe] at low [Fe/H]
877: has been proposed by Ramaty et al. (2000) and Ramaty, Lingenfelter,
878: \& Kozlovsky (2000) in connection with their explanation of a similar
879: increasing trend of [O/Fe] (cf. Israelian et al. 2001).
880: Taking into account the delayed deposition of the SN products
881: into the interstellar medium due to differences in transport and mixing,
882: which are inferred from the different characteristics of volatile (O) and
883: refractory (Fe) elements with dust grains,
884: they simulated the evolution of [O/Fe] versus [Fe/H] for the case of
885: a short mixing delay time (1 Myr) for O and a longer one (30 Myr)
886: for Fe. They found that [O/Fe] should increase monotonically up to
887: $\sim 1$ at [Fe/H] $\sim -3$ with a slope consistent with the previously
888: obeserved one (eg. Israelian et al. 2001), and then predicted that the
889: similar trend should be observed for another volatile element of S, which
890: is just the demonstrated case in this study.
891:
892:
893: \section{Conclusions} % sec 5.
894:
895: LTE and NLTE abundances of sulfur in 6 metal-poor giants and 61 dwarfs
896: (62 dwarfs, including the Sun) were explored in the range of
897: $-3$ \lsim [Fe/H] \lsim $+0.5$ using \SI 8693.9 \AA\ and 8694.6 \AA\ lines.
898: NLTE effects in the S abundances are found to be small and practically
899: negligible.
900: The behavior of [S/Fe] vs. [Fe/H] exhibits a linearly increasing trend
901: without plateau with decreasing [Fe/H]. Although the slope of the linearly
902: increasing trend is found to be in the range of $-0.17$ -- $-0.25$
903: for the NLTE behavior, the value of $-0.25$ is the most favorable one
904: for all observed data used in this study. It is interesting to note that
905: this slope is comparable to that ($\sim -0.3$) observed in [O/Fe],
906: which may be plausible since S and O are both volatile elements.
907:
908: The observed behavior of S may require chemical evolution models of the
909: Galaxy, in which scenarios of hypernovae nucleosynthesis and/or
910: time-delayed deposition into interstellar medium are incorporated.
911:
912: Since our conclusions are essentially based on the small sample of halo stars,
913: further observations should be performed for a larger sample of halo stars
914: to establish our conclusions and explore
915: the behavior of S in the very beginning stage of the chemical evolution
916: of the Galaxy.
917:
918:
919: %% If you wish to include an acknowledgments section in your paper,
920: %% separate it off from the body of the text using the \acknowledgments
921: %% command.
922:
923: %% Included in this acknowledgments section are examples of the
924: %% AASTeX hypertext markup commands. Use \url without the optional [HREF]
925: %% argument when you want to print the url directly in the text. Otherwise,
926: %% use either \url or \anchor, with the HREF as the first argument and the
927: %% text to be printed in the second.
928:
929: \acknowledgments
930:
931: We would like to thank G. Israelian for his helpful comments and discussions,
932: and the referees, S. G. Ryan and P. \Francois, for their comments
933: which helped us to improve the paper. We also wish to thank D. J. Schlegel
934: and T. C. Beers for their kind help with handling of the dust maps,
935: J. X. Prochaska and M. Asplund for the comments,
936: and K. Osada for his great help with revision of atmospheric parameters.
937:
938: We are grateful to the staff of the Okayama Astrophysical Observatory
939: and the W. M. Keck Observatory for their help with observations.
940: One of us (MTH) acknowledges the financial supports from grant-in-aid
941: for the scientific research (A-2, No. 10044103) by Japan Society
942: for the Promotion of Science as well as from Tokai University in 1999
943: fiscal year, which enabled his observation with HIRES.
944:
945: This work is partially supported from grant-in-aid for the scientific
946: research by Japan Society for the Promotion of Science for MTH
947: (C-2, No. 13640246).
948:
949: This research has made use of the SIMBAD database, operated at CDS,
950: Strasbourg, France.
951:
952: \vskip 1cm
953:
954: \appendix
955:
956: \section{Appendix}
957:
958: The results of NLTE calculations for two \SI lines at 8693.9 \AA\ and
959: 8694.6 \AA\ are given in Tables A1 and A2, respectively.
960:
961: The meanings of each column are as follows:
962:
963: \begin{enumerate}
964: \item The 1st column: Code stands for models with coded atmospheric
965: parameters of \Teff, \logg, and metallicity. For example, {\it t65g50m0}
966: stands for a model with \Teff$=6500$ K, \logg$=5.0$, and [Fe/H]$=0.0$;
967: {\it t50g40m2} a model with \Teff$=5000$ K, \logg$=4.0$, and [Fe/H]$=-2.0$.
968:
969: \item The 2nd column: $\lambda$ is the wavelength of the \SI line.
970:
971: \item The 3rd column: $\xi$ is the microturbulence.
972:
973: \item The 4th column: [S/Fe]$_{\rm i}$ stands for the input value of [S/Fe]
974: corresponding to $A_{\rm input}$ of S. The solar value of Fe adopted is 7.51.
975:
976: \item The 5th column: $A_{\rm input}$ is the input value of S abundance
977: for theoretical calculations of equivalent widths with LTE and NLTE.
978:
979: \item The 6th column: $W$(LTE) is the theoretical LTE equivalent widths
980: calculated with $A_{\rm input}$.
981:
982: \item The 7th column: $W$(NLTE) is the theoretical NLTE equivalent widths
983: calculated with $A_{\rm input}$.
984:
985: \item The 8th column: $A$(NLTE) is the abundance of S calculated from $W$(NLTE)
986: under the assumption of NLTE.
987: Although $A$(NLTE) should be equal to $A_{\rm input}$ in the strict sense,
988: there are practically small (and negligible) discrepancy due to
989: numerical problems in computation.
990:
991: \item The 9th column: $A$(LTE) is the abundance of S calculated from $W$(NLTE)
992: under the assumption of LTE.
993:
994: \item The 10th column: $\Delta$ is the NLTE correction defined as $\Delta \equiv$
995: $A$(NLTE) $-$ $A$(LTE).
996:
997: \end{enumerate}
998:
999:
1000:
1001:
1002:
1003: %% The reference list follows the main body and any appendices.
1004: %% Use LaTeX's thebibliography environment to mark up your reference list.
1005: %% Note \begin{thebibliography} is followed by an empty set of
1006: %% curly braces. If you forget this, LaTeX will generate the error
1007: %% "Perhaps a missing \item?".
1008: %%
1009: %% thebibliography produces citations in the text using \bibitem-\cite
1010: %% cross-referencing. Each reference is preceded by a
1011: %% \bibitem command that defines in curly braces the KEY that corresponds
1012: %% to the KEY in the \cite commands (see the first section above).
1013: %% Make sure that you provide a unique KEY for every \bibitem or else the
1014: %% paper will not LaTeX. The square brackets should contain
1015: %% the citation text that LaTeX will insert in
1016: %% place of the \cite commands.
1017:
1018: %% We have used macros to produce journal name abbreviations.
1019: %% AASTeX provides a number of these for the more frequently-cited journals.
1020: %% See the Author Guide for a list of them.
1021:
1022: %% Note that the style of the \bibitem labels (in []) is slightly
1023: %% different from previous examples. The natbib system solves a host
1024: %% of citation expression problems, but it is necessary to clearly
1025: %% delimit the year from the author name used in the citation.
1026: %% See the natbib documentation for more details and options.
1027:
1028: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1029:
1030: \bibitem[]{} Abia, C., Rebolo, R., Beckman, J. E., \& Crivellari, L. 1988, \aap, 206, 100
1031: \bibitem[]{} Alonso, A., Arribas, S., \& Mart\'inez-Roger, C. 1994, \aaps, 107, 365
1032: \bibitem[]{} Alonso, A., Arribas, S., \& Mart\'inez-Roger, C. 1995, \aap, 297, 197
1033: \bibitem[]{} Alonso, A., Arribas, S., \& Mart\'inez-Roger, C. 1996a, \aaps, 117, 227
1034: \bibitem[]{} Alonso, A., Arribas, S., \& Mart\'inez-Roger, C. 1996b, \aap, 313, 873
1035: \bibitem[]{} Alonso, A., Arribas, S., \& Mart\'inez-Roger, C. 1998, \aaps, 131, 209
1036: \bibitem[]{} Alonso, A., Arribas, S., \& Mart\'inez-Roger, C. 1999a, \aaps, 140, 261
1037: \bibitem[]{} Alonso, A., Arribas, S., \& Mart\'inez-Roger, C. 1999b, \aaps, 139, 335
1038: \bibitem[]{} Anders, E., \& Grevesse, N. 1989, Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, 53, 197
1039: \bibitem[]{} Axer, M., Fuhrmann, K., \& Gehren, T. 1994, \aap, 291, 895
1040: \bibitem[]{} Balachandran, S. 1990, \apj, 354, 310
1041: \bibitem[]{} Barbuy, B. 1988, \aap, 191, 121
1042: \bibitem[]{} Beers, T. C., Chiba, M., Yoshii, Y., Platais, I., Hanson, R. B.,
1043: Fuchs, B., \& Rossi, S. 2000, \aj, 119, 2866
1044: \bibitem[]{} Boesgaard, A. M., King, J. R., Deliyannis, C. P., \&
1045: Vogt, S. S. 1999, \aj, 117, 492
1046: \bibitem[]{} Branch, D., \& Bell, R. A. 1971, \mnras, 153, 57
1047: \bibitem[]{} Burkhart, C., \& Coupry, M. F. 1991, \aap, 249, 205
1048: \bibitem[]{} Burstein, D., \& Heiles, C. 1978, \apj, 225, 40
1049: \bibitem[]{} Burstein, D., \& Heiles, C. 1982, \aj, 87, 1165
1050: \bibitem[]{} Carney, B. W. 1983, \aj, 88, 610
1051: \bibitem[]{} Carretta, E., Gratton, R. G., \& Sneden, C. 2000, \aap, 356, 238
1052: \bibitem[]{} Chiappini,C., Matteucci, F., Beers, T.C., \& Nomoto, K. 1999, \apj, 515, 226
1053: \bibitem[]{} Clegg, R. E. S., Lambert, D. L., \& Tomkin, J. 1981, \apj, 250,
1054: 262
1055: \bibitem[]{} Crawford, D. L. 1973, IAU Symp. 54, Interstellar Dust and Related
1056: Topics, ed. J. M. Greenberg \& H. C. van de Hulst (Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publ. Co.), 93
1057: \bibitem[]{} Edvardsson, B., Andersen, J., Gustafsson, B., Lambert, D. L.,
1058: Nissen, P. E., \& Tomkin, J. 1993, \aap, 275, 101
1059: \bibitem[]{} Feltzing, S., \& Gonzalez, G. 2001, \aap, 367, 253
1060: \bibitem[]{} Fran{\c c}ois, P. 1986, \aap, 165, 183
1061: \bibitem[]{} Fran{\c c}ois, P. 1987, \aap, 176, 294
1062: \bibitem[]{} Fran{\c c}ois, P. 1988, \aap, 195, 226
1063: \bibitem[]{} Fulbright, J. P., \& Kraft, R. P. 1999, \apj, 118, 527
1064: \bibitem[]{} Girardi, L., Bressan, A., Bertelli, G., \& Chiosi, C. 2000, \aaps, 141, 371
1065: \bibitem[]{} Girardi, L., Bressan, A., Chiosi, C., Bertelli, G., \& Nasi, E.
1066: 1996, \aaps, 117, 113
1067: \bibitem[]{} Goswami, A., \& Prantzos, N. 2000, \aap, 359, 191
1068: \bibitem[]{} Gratton, R. G., Carretta, E., Eriksson, K., \& Gustafsson, B. 1999, \aap, 350, 955
1069: \bibitem[]{} Gratton, R. G., \& Sneden, C. 1994, \aap, 287, 927
1070: \bibitem[]{} Hauck, B., \& Mermilliod, M. 1998, \aaps, 129, 431
1071: \bibitem[]{} Holweger, H., Kock, M., \& Bard, A. 1995, \aap, 296, 233
1072: \bibitem[]{} Israelian, G., \& Rebolo, R. 2001, \apj, 557, L43
1073: \bibitem[]{} Israelian, G., Rebolo, R., Garc\'ia L\'opez, R. J., Bonifacio, P., Molaro, P., Basri, G., \& Shchukina, N. 2001, \apj, 551, 833
1074: \bibitem[]{} Johnson, D. J., Friedlander, M. W., \& Katz, J. I. 1993, \apj, 407, 699
1075: \bibitem[]{} Kuroczkin, D., \& Wiszniewski, A. 1977, Acta Astron., 27, 145
1076: \bibitem[]{} Kurucz, R. L. 1993, Kurucz CD-ROM No.13
1077: (Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics)
1078: \bibitem[]{} Kurucz, R. L. 1995, Kurucz CD-ROM No.23
1079: (Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics)
1080: \bibitem[]{} Laird, J. B., Carney, B. W., \& Latham, D. W. 1988, \aj, 95, 1843
1081: \bibitem[]{} Lambert, D. L., Heath, J. E., Lemke, M., \& Drake, J. 1966, \apjs, 103, 183
1082: \bibitem[]{} McWilliam, A. 1990, \apjs, 74, 1075
1083: \bibitem[]{} McWilliam, A. 1997, \araa, 35, 503
1084: \bibitem[]{} Nakamura, T., Umeda, H., Iwamoto, K., Nomoto, K., Hashimoto, M.,
1085: Raphael Hix, W., \& Thielemann, F. 2001, \apj, 555, 880
1086: \bibitem[]{} Nakamura, T., Umeda, H., Nomoto, K., Thieleman, F., \&
1087: Burrows, A. 1999, \apj, 517, 193
1088: \bibitem[]{} Nomoto, K., Mazzali, P. A., Nakamura, T., Iwamoto, K., Maeda, K.,
1089: Suzuki, T., Turatto, M., Danziger, I. J., \& Patat, F. 2001, in Supernovae and Gamma Ray Bursts, ed. K. Sahu, M. Livio, \& N. Pagagia (Cambridge: Cambridge
1090: Univ. Press), in press (astro-ph/0003077)
1091: \bibitem[]{} Oinas, V. 1974, \apjs, 27, 405
1092: \bibitem[]{} Pasquini, L., Liu, Q., \& Pallavicini, R. 1994, \aap, 287, 191
1093: \bibitem[]{} Perryman, M. A. C. et al. 1997, The Main Hipparcos Catalogue, ESA
1094: \bibitem[]{} Peterson, R. C. 1978, \apj, 224, 595
1095: \bibitem[]{} Pilachowski, C. A., Sneden, C., \& Kraft, R. P. 1966, \aj, 111, 1689
1096: \bibitem[]{} Prochaska, J. X., Naumov, S. O., Carney, B. W., McWilliam, A., \&
1097: Wolfe, A. 2000, \aj, 120, 2513
1098: \bibitem[]{} Ramaty, R., Lingenfelter, R. E., \& Kozlovsky, B. 2000, in
1099: IAU Symp. 198, The Light Elements and Their Evolution, ed.
1100: L. da Silva, M. Spite, \& J. R. de Medeiros (San Francisco:
1101: ASP), 51
1102: \bibitem[]{} Ramaty, R., Scully, S. T., Lingenfelter, R. E., \& Kozlovsky, B.
1103: 2000, \apj, 534, 747
1104: \bibitem[]{} Ryan, S. G., \& Lambert, D. L. 1995, \aj, 109, 2068
1105: \bibitem[]{} Sadakane, K., Honda, S., Kawanomoto, S., Takeda, Y., \&
1106: Takada-Hidai, M. 1999, \pasj, 51, 505
1107: \bibitem[]{} Salasnich, B., Girardi, L., Weiss, A., \& Chiosi, C. 2000, \aap, 361, 1023
1108: \bibitem[]{} Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P., \& Davis, M. 1998, \apj, 500, 525
1109: \bibitem[]{} Simmons, G. J., \& Blackwell, D. E. 1982, \aap, 112, 209
1110: \bibitem[]{} Spite, M., Pasquini, L., \& Spite, F. 1994, \aap, 290, 217
1111: \bibitem[]{} Spite, M., \& Spite, F. 1973, \aap, 23, 63
1112: \bibitem[]{} Takada-Hidai, M., \& Takeda, Y. 1996, \pasj, 48, 739
1113: \bibitem[]{} Takeda, Y., Takada-Hidai, M., Sato, S., Sargent, W. S. W.,
1114: Lu, L., Barlow, T. A., \& Jugaku, J. 2002, \apj\ submitted
1115: (astro-ph/0007007) (Paper I)
1116: \bibitem[]{} Th\'evenin, F., \& Idiart, I. P. 1999, \apj, 521, 753
1117: \bibitem[]{} Timmes, F. X., Woosley, S. E., \& Weaver, T. A. 1995, \apjs, 98, 617
1118: \bibitem[]{} Vogt, S. S. 1994, Proc. SPIE, 2198, 362
1119:
1120: \end{thebibliography}
1121:
1122:
1123: %% Generally speaking, only the figure captions, and not the figures
1124: %% themselves, are included in electronic manuscript submissions.
1125: %% Use \figcaption to format your figure captions. They should begin on a
1126: %% new page.
1127:
1128: \clearpage
1129:
1130: %% No more than seven \figcaption commands are allowed per page,
1131: %% so if you have more than seven captions, insert a \clearpage
1132: %% after every seventh one.
1133:
1134: %% There must be a \figcaption command for each legend. Key the text of the
1135: %% legend and the optional \label in curly braces. If you wish, you may
1136: %% include the name of the corresponding figure file in square brackets.
1137: %% The label is for identification purposes only. It will not insert the
1138: %% figures themselves into the document.
1139: %% If you want to include your art in the paper, use \plotone.
1140: %% Refer to the on-line documentation for details.
1141:
1142: \begin{center}
1143: {\bf Figure Captions}
1144: \end{center}
1145:
1146:
1147: Fig. 1a. --- Observed and synthetic spectra in the vicinity
1148: of two \SI lines for HD 44007, where observed data are shown by filled
1149: circles, and synthetic spectrum computed using the adopted LTE S abundance is
1150: overplotted with solid line.
1151:
1152:
1153: Fig. 1b. --- The same as Fig.1a, but for HD 84937.
1154:
1155:
1156: Fig. 1c. --- The same as Fig.1a, but for HD 88609.
1157:
1158:
1159: Fig. 1d. --- The same as Fig.1a, but for HD 165195.
1160:
1161:
1162: Fig. 1e. --- The same as Fig.1a, but for HD 175305
1163:
1164:
1165: Fig. 1f. --- The same as Fig.1a, but for HD 184266.
1166:
1167:
1168: Fig. 2. --- Behavior of sulfur with respect to iron in LTE results.
1169: The results of [S/Fe {\sc i}] and [S/Fe {\sc ii}] calculated for HD 165195
1170: using the model atmosphere adopted in Paper I are plotted with filled
1171: and open asterisks, respectively.
1172:
1173:
1174: Fig. 3. --- Behavior of sulfur with respect to iron in the NLTE results.
1175: The results of [S/Fe {\sc i}] and [S/Fe {\sc ii}] calculated for HD 165195
1176: using the model atmosphere adopted in Paper I are plotted the same as Figure 2.
1177: The least-square linear fit with a slope of $-0.17$
1178: obtained for [S/Fe {\sc i}] results of all our samples of dwarfs and giants is
1179: illustrated by dashed line, while the same fit with a slope of $-0.25$ is
1180: shown by solid line, which is
1181: derived from [S/Fe {\sc i}] data of all our samples together with those
1182: of Israelian \& Rebolo (2001) plotted with double circle.
1183:
1184:
1185:
1186: %% The following command ends your manuscript. LaTeX will ignore any text
1187: %% that appears after it.
1188:
1189: \end{document}
1190:
1191:
1192:
1193:
1194:
1195: