1: \documentstyle[11pt,newpasp,twoside,epsf]{article}
2:
3: \def\emphasize#1{{\sl#1\/}}
4: \def\arg#1{{\it#1\/}}
5: \let\prog=\arg
6:
7: \def\edcomment#1{\iffalse\marginpar{\raggedright\sl#1\/}\else\relax\fi}
8: \marginparwidth 1.25in
9: \marginparsep .125in
10: \marginparpush .25in
11: \reversemarginpar
12:
13: \markboth{Tej, Sahu, Chandrasekhar \& Ashok}{Substellar Mass Function
14: of Young Open Clusters}
15: \pagestyle{myheadings}
16: \begin{document}
17: %\title{Substellar Mass Function of Young Open Clusters Derived through
18: %a Statistical Approach Using 2MASS and GSC Data}
19: \title{Determination of Substellar Mass Function of Young Open Clusters Using
20: 2MASS and GSC Data}
21: \author{Anandmayee Tej}
22: \affil{Observatoire Astronomique de Strasbourg, 67000 Strasbourg, France}
23: \author{Kailash C. Sahu}
24: \affil{Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA}
25: \author{T. Chandrasekhar}
26: \affil{Physical Research Laboratory, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad - 380009, India}
27: \author{N. M. Ashok}
28: \affil{Physical Research Laboratory, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad - 380009, India}
29:
30: \begin{abstract}
31: We present a statistical method to derive the mass functions of open
32: clusters using sky survey data such as the 2 Micron All Sky Survey
33: (2MASS) and the Guide Star Catalogue (GSC). We have used this method to
34: derive the mass functions in the stellar/substellar regime of three
35: young, nearby open clusters, namely IC 348, $\sigma$ Orionis and
36: Pleiades. The mass function in the low mass range (M$<0.50 M_\odot$) is
37: appreciably flatter than the stellar Salpeter function for all three
38: open clusters. The contribution of objects below 0.5~M$_\odot$ to the
39: total mass of the cluster is $\sim$40\% and the contribution of objects
40: below 0.08~M$_\odot$ to the total is $\sim$4\%.
41:
42:
43: \end{abstract}
44:
45: \section{Introduction}
46: Recent surveys have found a significant population of low-mass stars,
47: brown dwarfs and planetary-mass objects in young open clusters. Since
48: low-mass objects evolve little over the lifetime of the Universe, the
49: present day mass function of these objects is a good representation of
50: the Initial Mass Function (IMF). The mass function in this low-mass
51: regime is however poorly known due to faintness of these objects and
52: also due to uncertainty in the mass-luminosity relations. Low-mass
53: objects at or below the Hydrogen Burning Mass Limit (HBML) of
54: 0.08~M$_\odot$ are known to be warmer and hence more luminous when
55: young although they cool rapidly and fade with age (Baraffe et al.
56: 1998). The combination of youth and proximity in some open clusters
57: make them ideal targets for searches of low-mass objects below the HBML
58: particularly at infrared wavelengths. In the present study we have
59: adopted a statistical approach to determine the mass function (dN/dM
60: $\propto$ M$^{-\alpha}$) of objects in the mass range $0.5~M_\odot$ to
61: 0.025--0.05~M$_\odot$ using data of three open clusters namely IC 348,
62: $\sigma$ Orionis and Pleiades.
63:
64: \section{Sample Selection and Analysis}
65: We have used the data from two extended sky surveys --- 2MASS Second
66: Incremental Release and the latest version of GSC --- on the three open
67: clusters. The limiting magnitudes of 16.5, 15.5, 15 and 21 in the $J$,
68: $H$, $K$ and $F$ (POSS II IIIa-F) passbands, respectively, enable us
69: to probe down to 0.025~M$_\odot$ in IC 348 and $\sigma$ Orionis and
70: 0.04M$_\odot$ in Pleiades. Unlike most other previous studies which
71: rely on confirming candidate low-mass objects through spectroscopy we
72: use a statistical approach to estimate the number of low-mass objects.
73: In this approach it is important to use several control fields close to
74: each cluster to subtract the contribution of foreground and background
75: objects. The nature of these two extended surveys permitted us to use
76: several control fields and variable field sizes. Table 1 lists the
77: positions and radii of the fields chosen for the three clusters.
78:
79: \begin{table}
80: \caption{Positions and sizes of the fields}
81:
82: \begin{tabular}{lllcl}
83: \\
84: \tableline
85: Fields&RA (J2000)&Dec (J2000)&Radius\\
86: &(h m \ s)&( $^\circ$ \ \ \ $\arcmin$ \ \ $\arcsec$)&(arcmin)\\
87: \tableline
88: IC 348&03 44 30&+32 17 00&20\\
89: Control 1&03 49 08&+31 19 08&20\\
90: Control 2&03 44 10&+33 19 26&20\\
91: &\\
92: $\sigma$ Orionis&05 38 45&--02 36 00&30\\
93: Control 1&05 58 29&--04 29 48&30\\
94: Control 2&0.5 11 00&--00 20 00&30\\
95: &\\
96: Pleiades&03 47 00&+24 07 00&90\\
97: Control 1&03 18 00&+26 41 00&90\\
98: Control 2&03 05 00&+24 42 00&90\\
99: \tableline
100: %\tableline
101: \end{tabular}
102: \end{table}
103:
104: In the first stage of analysis we merged the 2MASS and the GSC sources
105: by taking 2MASS coordinates and cross correlating them with the GSC
106: catalogue. A search radius of 2\arcsec was found to be the optimum
107: value for the cross correlation being small enough to reject spurious
108: and multiple detections and large enough to include any minor
109: positional uncertainties in the two catalogues. Selection criteria to
110: pick out cluster members were derived by inspecting various colour
111: magnitude diagrams (CMDs). The use of the F versus (F--R) CMD overcomes
112: the degeneracies between the mass and distance found in the K$_s$
113: versus (J--K$_s$) CMD, and minimizes the overlap between reddened
114: background stars and low-mass members of the cluster. This leads to a
115: more efficient rejection criteria for non members which is accomplished
116: using the empirical data from Leggett (1992) and the theoretical
117: isochrones of Baraffe et al. (1998). The selection criteria for
118: low-mass members, derived using the suitably distance-scaled and
119: extinction corrected model isochrones of Baraffe et al. (1998),
120: are listed in Table 2. The sources satisfying the criteria are further
121: statistically filtered for possible contaminants using the control
122: fields. Details of the procedure are discussed in Tej et al. (2002).
123: Finally, the masses of the selected candidates are determined by
124: comparing observed magnitudes with those derived from evolutionary
125: models (Baraffe et al. 1998 and Chabrier et al. 2000).
126:
127:
128: \begin{table}
129: \caption{Criteria for low-mass cluster members}
130: \begin{tabular}{llll}
131: \\
132: \tableline
133: IC 348&$\sigma$ Orionis&Pleiades\\
134: \tableline
135: $F<[2.58(F-J)$&$F<[2.55(F-J)$&$F<[7.93+1.99(F-J)$\\
136: \hspace*{0.65cm} +10.14]&\hspace*{0.65cm} +10.26]&$\hspace*{0.65cm} +056(F-J)^2-0.13(F-J)^3$\\
137: &&$\hspace*{0.65cm} +0.01(F-J)^4]$\\
138: $F-K \geq 4.09$&$F-K \geq 4.35$&$F-K \geq 3.42$\\
139: $K \hspace*{0.75cm} \geq 11.20$& $K \hspace*{0.75cm}\geq 11.17$&
140: $K \hspace*{0.75cm} \geq 11.17$\\
141: $J-K \geq$ 0.90&$J-K \geq$ 0.94&$J-K \geq$ 0.83\\
142: $H-K \geq$ 0.20&$H-K \geq$ 0.20&$H-K \geq$ 0.22\\
143: \tableline
144: %\tableline
145: \end{tabular}
146: \end{table}
147:
148:
149: \begin{figure}[ht]
150: \centering \leavevmode
151: \epsfxsize=10truecm \epsfbox{fig.ps}
152: \caption{\small{The derived mass functions for the three clusters. The
153: y-error bars are the $\sqrt{N}$ errors involved in the counting
154: statistics. For all three clusters the filled circles are points
155: derived using the models of Baraffe et al. (1998) and for IC 348
156: the open triangles are data points derived using the dusty
157: isochrones of Chabrier et al. (2000).}}
158: \end{figure}
159:
160: \section{Results}
161:
162: We first carried out a detailed study for IC 348. For this cluster, we
163: derived the mass function using the solar metallicity models of Baraffe
164: et al (1998) and dusty models of Chabrier et al. (2000) both of which
165: gave similar results. The location of low-mass members isolated by us
166: and the spectroscopically confirmed low-mass members of Luhman (1999)
167: are in good agreement which builds the confidence in our selection
168: criteria. We then used the same methodology for $\sigma$ Orionis and
169: Pleiades. The resulting exponents of the mass functions for IC 348,
170: $\sigma$ Orionis and Pleiades are respectively 0.7, 1.2 and 0.5 with an
171: estimated error of $\pm$ 0.2. For the younger clusters IC 348 and
172: $\sigma$ Orionis, there is some hint of a possible dip in the mass
173: function at the position of the HBML.
174:
175: \begin{table}
176: \caption{Summary of the results}
177: \begin{tabular}{llllll}
178: \\
179: \tableline
180: Cluster&Age&Distance&Mass Range&$\alpha$\\
181: &(Myr)&(pc)&(M$_\odot$)\\
182: \tableline
183: IC 348&5&316&0.5--0.035&0.7\\
184: $\sigma$ Orionis&3&352&0.5--0.045&1.2\\
185: Pleiades&100&125&0.5--0.055&0.5\\
186: \tableline
187: %\tableline
188: \end{tabular}
189: \end{table}
190:
191: The results of this statistical approach (Table 3) imply that though
192: the mass function continues to rise above the HBML it is appreciably
193: flatter compared to the Salpeter mass function. In Figure 1 we have
194: plotted the derived mass function for the three clusters. Taking the
195: canonical Salpeter exponent of 2.35 in the mass range 1--10 M$_\odot$,
196: the Chabrier exponent of 1.55 in the mass range 0.5--1.0 M$_\odot$ and
197: the values obtained by us below 0.5 M$_\odot$ we estimate the mass
198: contribution to be about 40\% for objects below 0.5 M$_\odot$ and 4\%
199: for objects below the HBML of 0.08 M$_\odot$. Our results are
200: consistent with previous studies (e.g. B\'ejar et al., 2001) and suggest
201: that although low-mass objects are at least as numerous as their
202: stellar counterparts their contribution to the total mass of the
203: cluster is small.
204:
205: \acknowledgments
206: We would like to thank Brian McLean and Mario Lattanzi (GSC-II project
207: scientists) for access to the development version of GSC-II in advance
208: of publication. We are grateful to I. Baraffe and F. Allard for making
209: electronic versions of the latest models available and generating model
210: isochrones for the nonstandard F passbands.
211:
212: \begin{references}
213: \reference Baraffe, I., Chabrier, G., Allard,F., \& Hauschildt,
214: P.H. 1998, A\&A, 337, 403
215: \reference B\'{e}jar, V.J.S., Martin, E.L., Zapatero Osorio, M.R.,
216: et al. 2001, ApJ, 556, 830
217: \reference Chabrier, G., Baraffee, I., Allard, F., \& Hauschildt,
218: P.H. 2000, ApJ, 542, 464
219: \reference Leggett, S.K. 1992, ApJS, 82, 351
220: \reference Luhman, K. L. 1999, ApJ, 525, 466
221: \reference Tej A., Sahu, K.C., Chandrasekhar, T. and Ashok, N.M.
222: 2002 ApJ (in press) (astro-ph/0206325)
223: \end{references}
224: \end{document}
225: