EDP Sciences
Free Access
Erratum
This article is an erratum for: [this article] [this article] [this article]

Issue
A&A
Volume 515, June 2010
Article Number C2
Number of page(s) 3
Section Stellar structure and evolution
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/200912982e
Published online 11 June 2010
A&A 515, C2 (2010)

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

SPITZER-IRS spectral fitting of discs around binary post-AGB stars
(Corrigendum)

C. Gielen1,[*] - H. Van Winckel1 - M. Min16 - L. B. F. M. Waters1,2 - T. Lloyd Evans3 - M. Matsuura4,5 - P. Deroo6 - C. Dominik2,7 - M. Reyniers8 - A. Zijlstra9 - K. D. Gordon10 - F. Kemper9 - R. Indebetouw11,15 - M. Marengo12 - M. Meixner10 - G. C. Sloan13 - A. G. G. M. Tielens14 - P. M. Woods9

1 - Instituut voor Sterrenkunde, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Celestijnenlaan 200D, 3001 Leuven, Belgium
2 - Sterrenkundig Instituut 'Anton Pannekoek', Universiteit Amsterdam, Kruislaan 403, 1098 Amsterdam, The Netherlands
3 - SUPA, School of Physics and Astronomy, University of St Andrews, North Haugh, St Andrews, Fife KY16 9SS, UK
4 - UCL-Institute of Origins, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK
5 - UCL-Institute of Origins, Mullard Space Science Laboratory, University College London, Holmbury St. Mary, Dorking, Surrey RH5 6NT, UK
6 - Jet Propulsion Laboratory, 4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, CA 91109, US
7 - Department of Astrophysics, Radboud University Nijmegen, PO Box 9010, 6500 GL Nijmegen, The Netherlands
8 - The Royal Meteorological Institute of Belgium, Department Observations, Ringlaan 3, 1180 Brussels, Belgium
9 - Jodrell Bank Centre for Astrophysics, Alan Turing Building, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK
10 - Space Telescope Science Institute, 3700 San Martin Drive, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA
11 - Department of Astronomy, University of Virginia, PO Box 3818, Charlottesville, VA 22903-0818, USA
12 - Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60 Garden Street, MS 65, Cambridge, MA 02138-1516, USA
13 - Department of Astronomy, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853-6801, USA
14 - Leiden Observatory, J.H. Oort Building, Niels Bohrweg 2, 2333 CA Leiden, The Netherlands
15 - National Radio Astronomy Observatory, 520 Edgemont Road, Charlottesville, VA 22906, USA
16 - Astronomisch Instituut Utrecht, Universiteit Utrecht, Princetonplein 5, 3584 CC Utrecht, The Netherlands

A&A, 490, 725-735 (2008), DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361:200810053
A&A, 503, 843-854 (2009), DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912060
A&A, 508, 1391-1402 (2009), DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912982


Key words: stars: abundances - stars: AGB and post-AGB - circumstellar matter - binaries: general - Magellanic Clouds - errata, addenda

Recently, we have discovered an error in our Monte-Carlo spectral fitting routine, more specifically where the errors on the fluxes were rescaled to get a reduced $\chi^2$ of 1. The rescaled errors were too big, resulting in too wide a range of ``good'' fits in our 100 step Monte-Carlo routine.

Table 1:   Erratum for Table A.1 in Gielen et al. (2008): best-fit parameters deduced from our full spectral fitting.

Table 2:   Erratum for Table A.2 in Gielen et al. (2008): best-fit parameters deduced from our full spectral fitting.

This problem affects Figs. 7-9 and Tables A.1, A.2 in Gielen et al. (2008), Table 3 in Gielen et al. (2009a), and Table 4 in Gielen et al. (2009b).

\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=6.5cm,clip]{12982fg1.eps}
\end{figure} Figure 1:

Erratum for Fig. 7 in Gielen et al. (2008): the fraction of large grains in the amorphous component versus the fraction of large grains in the crystalline component, using the fitting with grain sizes of 0.1 $\mu $m and 2.0 $\mu $m. Crystalline grains are almost completely made up of large 2.0 $\mu $m grains.

Open with DEXTER

We corrected for this error and present the new values and errors in the tables below. The new values and errors nearly all fall within the old error range. Our best $\chi^2$values and overall former scientific results are not affected. With these new errors some possible new trends in the dust parameters might be observed. These will be discussed in an upcoming paper where we extend the sample presented in Gielen et al. (2008) with newly obtained SPITZER-IRS data.

Table 3:   Erratum for Table 3 in Gielen et al. (2009a): best-fit parameters deduced from our full spectral fitting.

Table 4:   Erratum for Table 4 in Gielen et al. (2009b): best-fit parameters deduced from our full spectral fitting.

\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=7cm,clip]{12982fg2.eps}
\end{figure} Figure 2:

Erratum for Fig. 8 in Gielen et al. (2008): the mass fraction in large grains (4.0 $\mu $m) plotted against the mass fraction in crystalline grains, as derived from our best-fit parameters.

Open with DEXTER

\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=7cm,clip]{12982fg3.eps}
\end{figure} Figure 3:

Erratum for Fig. 9 in Gielen et al. (2008): the continuum-to-dust ratio of the observed spectra plotted against the mass fraction on large grains (4.0 $\mu $m).

Open with DEXTER

Acknowledgements
C.G. and H.V.W. acknowledge support of the Fund for Scientific Research of Flanders (FWO) under the grant G.0178.02. and G.0470.07. This work is based on observations made with the Spitzer Space Telescope, which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under a contract with NASA.

References

Footnotes

...[*]
Postdoctoral Fellow of the Fund for Scientific Research, Flanders.

All Tables

Table 1:   Erratum for Table A.1 in Gielen et al. (2008): best-fit parameters deduced from our full spectral fitting.

Table 2:   Erratum for Table A.2 in Gielen et al. (2008): best-fit parameters deduced from our full spectral fitting.

Table 3:   Erratum for Table 3 in Gielen et al. (2009a): best-fit parameters deduced from our full spectral fitting.

Table 4:   Erratum for Table 4 in Gielen et al. (2009b): best-fit parameters deduced from our full spectral fitting.

All Figures

 \begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=6.5cm,clip]{12982fg1.eps}
\end{figure} Figure 1:

Erratum for Fig. 7 in Gielen et al. (2008): the fraction of large grains in the amorphous component versus the fraction of large grains in the crystalline component, using the fitting with grain sizes of 0.1 $\mu $m and 2.0 $\mu $m. Crystalline grains are almost completely made up of large 2.0 $\mu $m grains.

Open with DEXTER
In the text

 \begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=7cm,clip]{12982fg2.eps}
\end{figure} Figure 2:

Erratum for Fig. 8 in Gielen et al. (2008): the mass fraction in large grains (4.0 $\mu $m) plotted against the mass fraction in crystalline grains, as derived from our best-fit parameters.

Open with DEXTER
In the text

 \begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=7cm,clip]{12982fg3.eps}
\end{figure} Figure 3:

Erratum for Fig. 9 in Gielen et al. (2008): the continuum-to-dust ratio of the observed spectra plotted against the mass fraction on large grains (4.0 $\mu $m).

Open with DEXTER
In the text


Copyright ESO 2010

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.