In this section, Figs. 3, 4, Figs. 10-14 of the accompanying article are plotted in colour in order to better distinguish the different observational or synthetic spectra.

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[angle=90,width=8.8cm,clip]{a3317f1_col.ps} \end{figure}$

Figure A.1: Comparison between the ISO-SWS data of $\alpha$ Cen A (black) and the synthetic spectrum (red) with stellar parameters $\mbox{$T_{{\rm eff}}$ }= 5830$ K, $\log g = 4.35$ , M = 1.3 $M_{\odot }$ , [Fe/H] = 0.25, $\mbox{$\xi_{\rm t}$ }= 1.0$ km s^-1, $\mbox{${\rm ^{12}C/^{13}C}$ }~\!\! =~\!\! 89$ , $\varepsilon$ (C) = 8.74, $\varepsilon$ (N) = 8.26, $\varepsilon$ (O) = 9.13 and $\mbox{$\theta_{\rm d}$ }= 8.80$ mas. Some of the most prominent discrepancies between these two spectra are indicated by an arrow.

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[angle=90,width=8.8cm,clip]{a3317f2_col.ps} \end{figure}$

Figure A.2: Comparison between band 1 and band 2 of the ISO-SWS data of $\gamma$ Dra (black) and the synthetic spectrum (red) with stellar parameters $\mbox{$T_{{\rm eff}}$ }= 3960$ K, $\log g = 1.30$ , M = 1.7 $M_{\odot }$ , [Fe/H] = 0.00, $\mbox{$\xi_{\rm t}$ }= 2.0$ km s^-1, $\mbox{${\rm ^{12}C/^{13}C}$ }= 10$ , $\varepsilon$ (C) = 8.15, $\varepsilon$ (N) = 8.26, $\varepsilon$ (O) = 8.93 and $\mbox{$\theta_{\rm d}$ }= 9.98$ mas.

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[angle=90,width=8.8cm,clip]{a3317f3_col.ps} \end{figure}$

Figure A.3: Band 2 for Sirius (A1 V) and $\gamma$ Dra (K5 III) are displayed. The ISO-SWS spectrum is plotted in black, the synthetic spectrum in red. Problems with the RSRF are indicated by an arrow.

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[angle=90,width=8.8cm,clip]{a3317f4_col.ps} \end{figure}$

Figure A.4: Comparison between the ISO-SWS observation and the synthetic spectrum of $\gamma$ Dra at a resolving power of 1500 (being the most conservative theoretical resolution for band 1A Leech et al. 2002).

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[angle=90,width=8.8cm,clip]{a3317f5_col.ps} \end{figure}$

Figure A.5: Comparison between the AOT06 observation (revolution 538, black) and the AOT01 speed-4 observation (red) of $\gamma$ Dra. Both are rebinned to a resolving power of 1500.

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[angle=90,width=8.8cm,clip]{a3317f6_col.ps} \end{figure}$

Figure A.6: Top: Comparison between the AOT01 speed-4 observation of $\gamma$ Dra rebinned at 1) a resolving power of 1500 (black) and 2) a resolving power of 1300 (red). Bottom: Comparison between the ISO-SWS AOT01 observation in band 1A (black) and its synthetic spectrum (red) at a resolving power of 1300.

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[angle=90,width=8.8cm,clip]{a3317f7_col.ps} \end{figure}$

Figure A.7: Summer (red) and winter (green) FTS-KP spectra of $\alpha$ Boo at a resolving power $\lambda / \Delta \lambda$ of 60 000. They are compared with the synthetic spectrum (black) for $\alpha$ Boo with stellar parameters $\mbox{$T_{{\rm eff}}$ }= 4350$ K, $\log g = 1.50$ , M = 0.75 $M_{\odot }$ , [Fe/H] = -0.50, $\mbox{$\xi_{\rm t}$ }= 1.7$ km s^-1, $\mbox{${\rm ^{12}C/^{13}C}$ }= 7$ , $\varepsilon$ (C) = 7.96, $\varepsilon$ (N) = 7.61, $\varepsilon$ (O) = 8.68, $\varepsilon$ (Mg) = 7.33 and $\Gamma _{\rm t} = 3$ km s^-1. The OH 1-0 lines are predicted as too weak.

Online Material

Appendix A: Comparison between different observational and synthetic data (coloured plots)