![]() | ![]() |
Astron. Astrophys. 335, 522-532 (1998) 3. Analysis3.1. Outline of the procedureA detailed description of our analysis method applied to ground-based observations of embedded clusters has been published elsewhere (CRBR; Comerón et al. 1996), so we will only give an overview. Our goal is to determine the intrinsic properties of a young stellar object, possibly surrounded by a circumstellar disk or envelope, and embedded in a heavily obscuring molecular cloud. Foreground extinction decreases and reddens the observed fluxes. The circumstellar material tends to add primarily to the longer wavelength output, either by thermally reprocessing the shorter wavelength luminosity of the object, or through emission of the viscously heated material accreted onto the di sk. In color-magnitude and color-color diagrams, therefore, the
reddening vectors due to extinction and circumstellar excess are well
separated. In the commonly used 3.2. Theoretical isochronesThe choice of the set of pre-main sequence evolutionary tracks is clearly an important aspect of the fit. In studies of emerged clusters, it is usually possible to place the object on a temperature-luminosity diagram, and then to estimate the mass and the age by overlaying the evolutionary tracks on the same diagram. However, mass estimates for embedded cluster members rely more strongly on the adopted evolutionary tracks, since in the procedure outlined above it is not possible to derive the temperature and luminosity independently of them. Several recent sets of isochrones exist in the literature covering the mass range expected for our objects (Burrows et al. 1993, 1997; D'Antona & Mazzitelli 1994; Baraffe et al. 1997). A critical discussion of the different sets of isochrones from an observational point of view has been presented by Luhman 1998 and Luhman & Rieke 1998, who have examined the ability of existing models to reproduce the coevality of open cluster members, to provide well-behaved mass functions, and to fit well determined physical parameters of components of eclipsing binaries. For the lower masses of interest in this paper, the use of detailed model atmospheres and an explicit treatment of radiative transfer at the surface are major factors in producing realistic results. At the present time, Burrows et al. 1997 and Baraffe et al. 1997 provide the most adequate treatment of the atmosphere boundary condition, using the new, still unpublished Allard NextGen models. The differences between these two sets in this range are minor; we have used the tracks of Burrows et al. 1997 in the analysis presented here. 3.3. Modeling the infrared excessThe spectral energy distributions of sources with infrared excesses
are approximated as described by CRBR, based on the circumstellar
envelope models of Adams et al. 1987. The amount of infrared excess
required is parametrized by the spectral index 3.4. Foreground extinctionThe adopted extinction law is that of Rieke & Lebofsky 1985 for
wavelengths below 4.5 µm. Deviations from a universal
extinction law in star forming regions such as 3.5. Effects of binaritySome of the objects in our sample may be unresolved binaries, as can be expected given the large fraction of binaries detected among T Tauri stars (Brandner et al. 1996). Undetected binarity in this mass range can affect our fits in different ways, depending on the mass ratio of the system. If one of the components is cooler than the other, the combined spectral energy distribution of the system is dominated by the brighter member in the near infrared, with the fainter and cooler companion contributing at longer wavelengths. The effect of the companion would then be similar to that of a circumstellar excess, and the parameters of the primary will be well estimated by our method. If the system has two components of similar brightness and temperature, the isochrone fitting will yield a single object with higher temperature, extinction, luminosity, and mass than those of each component. Binarity can thus lead us to classify a brown dwarf erroneously as a star, but not the opposite. ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() © European Southern Observatory (ESO) 1998 Online publication: June 18, 1998 ![]() |