Table 5.

Comparison of derived metallicity profile parameters from two methods. One method is a simple linear fit to the metallicity derived in a series of annular bins. The other is the full model fitting that accounts for seeing effects.

GalaxyParameterSimpleFull
annularmodelling
log10(Z0/Z)+0.31 ± 0.01|$+0.26^{+0.01}_{-0.01}$|
HDFS-0003
(dex)
rlog10(Z)−0.026 ± 0.002|$-0.034^{+0.001}_{-0.002}$|
(dex kpc−1)
log10(Z0/Z)−0.28 ± 0.02|$-0.43^{+0.10}_{-0.13}$|
HDFS-0016
(dex)
rlog10(Z)+0.016 ± 0.004|$+0.11^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$|
(dex kpc−1)
GalaxyParameterSimpleFull
annularmodelling
log10(Z0/Z)+0.31 ± 0.01|$+0.26^{+0.01}_{-0.01}$|
HDFS-0003
(dex)
rlog10(Z)−0.026 ± 0.002|$-0.034^{+0.001}_{-0.002}$|
(dex kpc−1)
log10(Z0/Z)−0.28 ± 0.02|$-0.43^{+0.10}_{-0.13}$|
HDFS-0016
(dex)
rlog10(Z)+0.016 ± 0.004|$+0.11^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$|
(dex kpc−1)
Table 5.

Comparison of derived metallicity profile parameters from two methods. One method is a simple linear fit to the metallicity derived in a series of annular bins. The other is the full model fitting that accounts for seeing effects.

GalaxyParameterSimpleFull
annularmodelling
log10(Z0/Z)+0.31 ± 0.01|$+0.26^{+0.01}_{-0.01}$|
HDFS-0003
(dex)
rlog10(Z)−0.026 ± 0.002|$-0.034^{+0.001}_{-0.002}$|
(dex kpc−1)
log10(Z0/Z)−0.28 ± 0.02|$-0.43^{+0.10}_{-0.13}$|
HDFS-0016
(dex)
rlog10(Z)+0.016 ± 0.004|$+0.11^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$|
(dex kpc−1)
GalaxyParameterSimpleFull
annularmodelling
log10(Z0/Z)+0.31 ± 0.01|$+0.26^{+0.01}_{-0.01}$|
HDFS-0003
(dex)
rlog10(Z)−0.026 ± 0.002|$-0.034^{+0.001}_{-0.002}$|
(dex kpc−1)
log10(Z0/Z)−0.28 ± 0.02|$-0.43^{+0.10}_{-0.13}$|
HDFS-0016
(dex)
rlog10(Z)+0.016 ± 0.004|$+0.11^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$|
(dex kpc−1)
Close
This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

Close

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

View Article Abstract & Purchase Options

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Close