Targeting Bright Metal-poor Stars in the Disk and Halo Systems of the Galaxy
AI-generated Key Points
- Spectroscopic follow-up study on 1897 low-metallicity star candidates from the B&B Survey
- Used GMOS-N/S and Goodman spectrographs for observations
- Estimated stellar atmospheric parameters and determined carbon and magnesium abundance ratios
- Confirmed that 56% of program stars are metal-poor, 30% are very metal-poor, and 2% are extremely metal-poor
- Identified 191 carbon-enhanced metal-poor (CEMP) stars, with CEMP fractions of 19% for VMP and 43% for EMP regimes
- Grouped CEMP stars into Group I ($A({\rm C}) \gtrsim 7.25$) and Group II ($A({\rm C}) \lesssim 7.25$)
- Combined data with Gaia EDR3 astrometric information to improve target selection criteria for VMP and EMP stars
- Increased efficiency compared to random draws from B&B catalog, doubling success rates for different metallicity thresholds
- Investigated presence of dynamically interesting stars associated with disk system or halo substructures such as Gaia Sausage/Enceladus and Sequoia with [Fe/H] $\leq -2.5$
- Research based on observations obtained at SOAR telescope and Gemini North/South telescopes
Authors: Guilherme Limberg, Rafael M. Santucci, Silvia Rossi, Derek Shank, Vinicius M. Placco, Timothy C. Beers, Kevin C. Schlaufman, Andrew R. Casey, Hélio D. Perottoni, Young Sun Lee
Abstract: We present the results of spectroscopic follow-up for 1897 low-metallicity star candidates, selected from the Best & Brightest (B&B) Survey, carried out with the GMOS-N/S (Gemini North/South telescopes) and Goodman (SOAR Telescope) spectrographs. From these low-resolution ($R \sim 2000$) spectra, we estimate stellar atmospheric parameters, as well as carbon and magnesium (representative of $\alpha$ elements) abundance ratios. We confirm that $56\%$ of our program stars are metal-poor ([Fe/H] $< -1.0$), $30\%$ are very metal-poor (VMP; [Fe/H] $< -2.0$) and $2\%$ are extremely metal-poor (EMP; [Fe/H] $< -3.0$). There are 191 carbon-enhanced metal-poor (CEMP) stars, resulting in CEMP fractions of $19\%$ and $43\%$ for the VMP and EMP regimes, respectively. A total of 94 confirmed CEMP stars belong to Group I ($A({\rm C}) \gtrsim 7.25$) and 97 to Group II ($A({\rm C}) \lesssim 7.25$) in the Yoon-Beers $A$(C)$-$[Fe/H] diagram. Moreover, we combine these data with Gaia EDR3 astrometric information to delineate new target-selection criteria, which have been applied to the Goodman/SOAR candidates, to more than double the efficiency for identification of bona-fide VMP and EMP stars in comparison to random draws from the B&B catalog. We demonstrate that this target-selection approach can achieve success rates of $96\%$, $76\%$, $28\%$ and $4\%$ for [Fe/H] $\leq -1.5$, $\leq -2.0$, $\leq -2.5$ and $\leq -3.0$, respectively. Finally, we investigate the presence of dynamically interesting stars in our sample. We find that several VMP/EMP ([Fe/H] $\leq -2.5$) stars can be associated with either the disk system or halo substructures like Gaia-Sausage/Enceladus and Sequoia.
Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant
You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.
Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting
Score: 0
Why do we need votes?
Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.
The previous summary was created more than a year ago and can be re-run (if necessary) by clicking on the Run button below.
Similar papers summarized with our AI tools
Navigate through even more similar papers through a
tree representationLook for similar papers (in beta version)
By clicking on the button above, our algorithm will scan all papers in our database to find the closest based on the contents of the full papers and not just on metadata. Please note that it only works for papers that we have generated summaries for and you can rerun it from time to time to get a more accurate result while our database grows.
Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.