Paper detail

Massive star formation in Wolf-Rayet galaxies: IV b. Using empirical calibrations to compute the oxygen abundance

We have performed a comprehensive multiwavelength analysis of a sample of 20 starburst galaxies that show a substantial population of very young massive stars, most of them classified as Wolf-Rayet (WR) galaxies. We have analysed optical/NIR colours, physical and chemical properties of the ionized gas, stellar, gas and dust content, star-formation rate and interaction degree (among many other galaxy properties) of our galaxy sample using multi-wavelength data. We compile 41 independent star-forming regions --with oxygen abundances between 12+log(O/H) = 7.58 and 8.75--, of which 31 have a direct estimate of the electron temperature of the ionized gas. This paper, only submitted to astro-ph, compiles the most common empirical calibrations to the oxygen abundance, and presents the comparison between the chemical abundances derived in these galaxies using the direct method with those obtained through empirical calibrations, as it is published in Lopez-Sanchez & Esteban (2010b). We find that (i) the Pilyugin method (Pilyugin 2001a,b; Pilyugin & Thuan 2005) which considers the R23 and the P parameters, is the best suited empirical calibration for these star-forming galaxies, (ii) the relations between the oxygen abundance and the N2 or the O3N2 parameters provided by Pettini & Pagel (2004) give acceptable results for objects with 12+log(O/H)>8.0, and (iii) the results provided by empirical calibrations based on photoionization models (McGaugh, 1991; Kewley & Dopita, 2002; Kobulnicky & Kewley, 2004) are systematically 0.2 -- 0.3 dex higher than the values derived from the direct method. These differences are of the same order that the abundance discrepancy found between recombination and collisionally excited lines. This may suggest the existence of temperature fluctuations in the ionized gas, as exists in Galactic and other extragalactic HII regions.

preprint2010arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.