Analyzing derived metallicities and ionization parameters from model-based determinations in ionized gaseous nebulae
O.L. Dors Jr, Angela Krabbe, Guillermo F. Hagele, Enrique, Perez-Montero

TL;DR
This study evaluates the accuracy of various diagnostic diagrams for determining oxygen abundances and ionization parameters in star-forming regions, finding that certain line ratios yield results close to direct electron temperature methods.
Contribution
It compares diagnostic diagram methods with direct measurements and photoionization models, highlighting their reliability and the impact of N/O-O/H relation assumptions.
Findings
Certain diagnostic diagrams produce O/H values close to direct methods.
Dispersion in results is linked to N/O-O/H relation assumptions.
No correlation found between ionization parameter and metallicity.
Abstract
We analyze the reliability of oxygen abundances and ionization parameters obtained from different diagnostic diagrams. For this, we compiled from the literature observational emission line intensities and oxygen abundance of 446 star-forming regions whose O/H abundance was determined by direct estimation of electron temperature. The abundances compiled were compared with the values calculated in this work using different diagnostic diagrams in combination with results from a grid of photoionization models. We found that the [\ion{O}{iii}]/[\ion{O}{ii}] vs. [\ion{N}{ii}]/[\ion{O}{ii}], [\ion{O}{iii}]/H vs. [\ion{N}{ii}]/[\ion{O}{ii}], and ([\ion{O}{iii}]/H)/([\ion{N}{ii}]/H) vs. [\ion{S}{ii}]/[\ion{S}{iii}] diagnostic diagrams give O/H values close to the -method, with differences of about 0.04 dex and dispersion of about 0.3 dex. Similar results were…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
