# Chemical composition of stars with massive planets ††thanks: Based on
observations collected at OHP observatory, France

T. Mishenina1, N. Basak1, V. Adibekyan2, C. Soubiran3, V. Kovtyukh1

1Astronomical Observatory, Odessa National University, Shevchenko Park, 65014,
Odessa, Ukraine,
2 Instituto de Astrofísica e Ciências do Espaço, Universidade do Porto, CAUP,
Rua das Estrelas, 4150-762 Porto, Portugal
3 Laboratoire d’astrophysique de Bordeaux, Univ. Bordeaux, CNRS, B18N, allée
Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 33615 Pessac, France

(Accepted, Received, in original form )

###### Abstract

Stellar parameters of 25 planet-hosting stars and abundances of Li, C, O, Na,
Mg, Al, S, Si, Ca, Sc, Ti, V, Cr, Mn, Fe, Ni, Zn, Y, Zr, Ba, Ce, Pr, Nd, Sm
and Eu, were studied based on homogeneous high resolution spectra and uniform
techniques. The iron abundance [Fe/H] and key elements (Li, C, O, Mg, Si)
indicative of the planet formation, as well as the dependencies of [El/Fe] on
$T_{cond}$, were analyzed. The iron abundances determined in our sample stars
with detected massive planets range within –0.3 $<$ [Fe/H] $<$ 0.4. The
behaviour of [C/Fe], [O/Fe], [Mg/Fe] and [Si/Fe] relative to [Fe/H] is
consistent with the Galactic Chemical Evolution trends. The mean values of C/O
and [C/O] are $<$C/O$>$ = 0.48 $\pm$0.07 and $<$[C/O]$>$ = –0.07 $\pm$0.07,
which are slightly lower than solar ones. The Mg/Si ratios range from 0.83 to
0.95 for four stars in our sample and from 1.0 to 1.86 for the remaining 21
stars. Various slopes of [El/Fe] vs. $T_{cond}$ were found. The dependencies
of the planetary mass on metallicity, the lithium abundance, the C/O and Mg/Si
ratios, and also on the [El/Fe]–$T_{cond}$ slopes were considered.

###### keywords:

stars: abundances – stars: late-type – stars: planetary systems

††pagerange: Chemical composition of stars with massive planets ††thanks:
Based on observations collected at OHP observatory,
France–LABEL:lastpage††pubyear: 2015

##  1 Introduction

Over the past few decades, there has been an ongoing search for opportunities
to study extrasolar planets based on characteristics of their hosting stars.
The chemical composition features of parent stars considered as possible
indicators of the presence of planetary systems, while elemental relationships
can be essential for studying the formation of planets of different masses.
Initially, the iron abundance [Fe/H] (Gonzalez, 1997; Santos, Israelian &
Mayor, 2001; Udry & Santos, 2007, and references therein), and the lithium
abundance in stellar atmospheres (e.g. Gonzalez & Laws, 2000; Gonzalez, 2008;
Israelian et al., 2004) came to the attention of researchers. Stars with
massive Jupiter-like planets exhibited a [Fe/H] excess (e.g. Santos, Israelian
& Mayor, 2001; Fischer & Valenti, 2005; Sousa et al., 2008), however such an
excess was not obvious in stars hosting less massive planets, like Neptune-
and Earth-sized ones (e.g. Udry & Santos, 2007; Sousa et al., 2008); later,
extrasolar planets were also found around metal-deficient stars (Sousa et al.,
2008; Adibekyan et al., 2012b, a). A detailed review with the results on the
relationship between stellar metallicity and planet occurrence was recently
presented by Adibekyan (2019).

As for lithium, in particular 7Li, its lower abundance in stars with planetary
systems, as compared to those without discovered planets, has been interpreted
in favour of the presence of planets in these stars (e.g. Gonzalez & Laws,
2000; Israelian et al., 2004; Gonzalez, Carlson & Tobin, 2010; Israelian et
al., 2009; Delgado Mena et al., 2015; Figueira et al., 2014; Mishenina et al.,
2016). Meanwhile, an overabundance of the 6Li isotope could suggest the
presence of massive planets (e.g. Israelian et al., 2001; Montalbán & Rebolo,
2002). For solar analogues (with $T_{\rm eff}$ $\sim$ 5600-5900 K), a
significant difference in lithium abundance between stars with and without
planets was detected by Delgado Mena et al. (2014); the authors noted that it
was due not only to the differences in $T_{\rm eff}$, [Fe/H] or age, but also
to the possible presence of planets that caused additional rotationally-
induced mixing in the external layers of planet-hosting stars. Yet, the
observed lithium depletion, represented by a robust correlation between
lithium abundance and the age of solar-like stars, (see, e.g. Baumann et al.,
2010; Carlos, Nissen & Meléndez, 2016), may reflect the evolution of the star
rather than the presence of a planet.

Studying the CNO abundances in stars with and without planetary systems has
not revealed any differences in the levels of these elements between the two
groups of stars (e.g. Delgado Mena et al., 2010; da Silva, Milone & Reddy,
2011; da Silva, Milone & Rocha-Pinto, 2015; Nissen et al., 2014), while the
elemental abundance trends with metallicities favored the Galactic chemical
enrichment. Suárez-Andrés et al. (2016, 2017) demonstrated that the linear
relationship between [N/Fe] and [Fe/H] was associated with the Galactic
chemical evolution, as the planet-hosting stars tended to be richer in metals.
They also found two different trends for [C/Fe] versus [Fe/H] $>$ 0 and [Fe/H]
$<$ 0 and determined a flat distribution of the [C/Fe] ratio for all planetary
masses.

The key role of carbon-to-oxygen (C/O) and magnesium-to-silicon (Mg/Si) ratios
in planet-hosting stars, which can provide information about the
protoplanetary discs wherein the respective planets are formed, has been
revealed in, e.g., Kuchner & Seager (2005), Bond, O’Brien & Lauretta (2010).
Theoretical calculations displayed that C/O and Mg/Si are the most important
elemental ratios in determining the mineralogy of planets. The C/O ratio
determines the distribution of Si among carbide and oxide species, while Mg/Si
gives information about the silicate mineralogy (Bond, O’Brien & Lauretta,
2010). However, currently available data on the abundances of these elements,
in particular the C/O ratios, are quite contradictory and ambiguous, and there
have been noticeable discrepancies in the estimates of the C and O abundances
in various studies. For instance, Petigura & Marcy (2011) reported that
planet-bearing systems were enriched in carbon with ratio $<$C/O$>$ =1.00.
Meanwhile, other studies have not confirmed that (e.g. Nissen, 2013; Nissen et
al., 2014) and shown that the stars with planets do not exhibit C/O ratios
exceeding 0.8. According to Teske et al. (2014), the mean value of the C/O
ratio in their sample of transiting exoplanet-host stars was 0.54, being equal
to the solar value (C/O⊙ = 0.54) and lower than the earlier measured $<$C/O$>$
value of about 0.65-0.75 in host stars. Pavlenko et al. (2019) reported that
metal-rich dwarfs with planets were overabundant in carbon relative to Sun
with an average difference $<$[C/O]$>$ = 0.05 $\pm$0.05.

Adibekyan et al. (2015) found that the magnesium-to-silicon ratio [Mg/Si] in
stars with low-mass planets was higher than in stars without planets. Despite
the fact that the [Mg/Si] ratio depends significantly on metallicity through
the Galactic chemical evolution, the difference in the [Mg/Si] ratio between
low-mass planet hosts and non-hosts remains even after removing the Galactic
evolution trend (Adibekyan et al., 2015). Adibekyan et al. (2017) took into
account a plausible departure from Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium (NLTE)
during the formation of the Mg lines and found out that the correction for the
NLTE effects resulted in a small difference in [Mg/Si] ratios and that high
[Mg/Si] values in the stars hosting super-Earth or Neptune-like planets were
likely to be associated with their formation. The correlation between the C/O
and Mg/Si ratios, that is critical for determining the mineralogy of planetary
companions, has been studied in Suárez-Andrés et al. (2018). The authors
obtained that 86% of stars among all stars with high-mass companions have the
carbon-to-oxygen ratio in the range of 0.4 $<$ C/O $<$ 0.8, the remaining 14%
having a C/O below 0.4; and the Mg/Si ratio is ranged within 1 $<$ Mg/Si $<$ 2
for all the stars with low-mass planets and for 85% of stars with high-mass
companions (the other 15% have Mg/Si $<$ 1). Planet hosts with low-mass
companions yielded C/O and Mg/Si ratios similar to the solar ones, whereas
stars with high-mass companions exhibited lower C/O ratios. The existing
contradictions in the data obtained inspire the need for new investigations of
the abundances of elements to study the relationship of the abundances with
the formation of planetary systems.

Udry & Santos (2007) pointed out that the relationship between volatile and
refractory elements may be indicative of the presence of planets. Meléndez et
al. (2009) showed that the Sun exhibited a depletion of refractory elements
relative to volatiles as compared to the solar twins. Such a peculiarity could
be related to the formation of planetary systems like our own, in particular
to the existence of terrestrial planets (Meléndez et al., 2009). Moreover,
later, it was shown that similar relationships could reflect a wide diversity
of exoplanetary systems observed nowadays, as well as a variety of scenarios
which could occur within the circumstellar discs (Spina, Meléndez & Ramírez,
2016). Alternatively, it was also suggested that similar trends could also be
associated with the correlation of elemental abundances with the age and place
of birth in the Galaxy (e.g. González Hernández et al., 2013; Adibekyan et
al., 2014, 2015; Nissen, 2015), and hence not related to the presence of
planets.

This paper aims to study the parameters and chemical composition of stars with
detected massive planets in order to establish and verify the relationship
between the presence of Jupiter-like planets and chemical composition of the
respective parent stars. It provides an excellent opportunity to check how the
peculiarities of the chemical composition of the planet host stars
characterize the presence of planets and their properties, such as, masses. To
this end, the lithium and the key elements for the formation of planetary
systems (C, O, Mg, Si and their ratios), as well as the dependence of the
contents of volatile and refractory elements on the condensation temperature
$T_{cond}$ will be considered as a function of planetary mass.

The paper is organized as follow. Observations and selection of stars are
described in §2. The main stellar parameters are defined in §3. The abundance
determinations and an error analysis are presented in §4. The analysis of the
relationship between the presence of Jupiter-like planets and the chemical
composition of the parent stars is reported in §5.

##  2 Sample stars and observations

A sample of planet-hosting stars with detected massive planets consisting of
24 stars with the planetary masses, $M_{pl}$, from 0.78 to 19.02 $M_{J}$ and
one star with Neptun-size mass planet, that is 0.05 $M_{J}$ was selected from
several papers related to a series of the SOPHIE Exoplanet Consortium
programmes (Bouchy et al., 2009). We relied on the following sources: Boisse
et al. (2012); Moutou et al. (2014); Courcol et al. (2015); Hébrard et al.
(2016); Díaz et al. (2016); Santos et al. (2016); Rey et al. (2017); Borgniet
et al. (2019). The stellar and planetary characteristics of the sample planet
hosts are presented in Table 1.

We used the stellar spectra from the OHP archive (Moultaka et al., 2004)
obtained with the echelle spectrograph SOPHIE (Perruchot et al., 2011) at the
resolving power R = 75,000 restricted to the wavelength range 4,400 – 6,800 Å
and signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) higher than 80. The spectral processing,
including normalisation of individual spectra to the local continuum,
identification of spectral lines of different chemical elements, the line
depth and equivalent width (EW) measurements, etc., was performed employing
the spectrum with the highest S/N ratio for each star using the DECH30
software package developed by G.A. Galazutdinov
111http://www.gazinur.com/DECH-software.html.

Table 1: Stellar characteristics and planetary masses of the planet hosts sample. Star | $T_{\rm eff}$ | $\log\,g$ | [Fe/H] | V${\rm t}$ | $T_{\rm eff}$ | $\log\,g$ | [Fe/H] |  $v$sin$i$ | log$R^{{}^{\prime}}_{\rm HK}$ | planet | $M_{pl}$ | ref
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---
| (K) |  |  | (km s-1) | (K) |  |  | (km s-1) |  |  | ($M_{J}$) |
| (our data) | (from literature) |
HD12484 | 5831 | 4.40 | 0.05 | 1.1 | 5920 | 4.65 | 0.05 | 8.2 | –4.43 | HD12484b | 2.98 | Hébrard et al. (2016)
HD13908 | 6150 | 4.00 | 0.05 | 1.0 | 6255 | 4.11 | 0.01 | 4.2 | –4.90 | HD13908b | 0.86 | Moutou et al. (2014)
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | HD13908c | 5.10 |
HD16175 | 5977 | 4.30 | 0.37 | 1.0 | 6022 | 4.21 | 0.37 | 5.1 | –4.77 | HD16175b | 4.77 | Díaz et al. (2016)
HD17674 | 5904 | 4.28 | –0.15 | 0.8 | 5904 | 4.34 | –0.16 | 2.3 | –4.91 | HD17674b | 0.87 | Rey et al. (2017)
HD24040 | 5800 | 4.25 | 0.23 | 0.8 | – | – | – | – | – | HD24040b | 4.0 | Boisse et al. (2012)
HD29021 | 5550 | 4.30 | –0.18 | 1.1 | 5560 | 4.44 | -0.24 | 2.7 | –5.00 | HD29021b | 2.4 | Rey et al. (2017)
HD35759 | 5917 | 4.10 | –0.04 | 0.9 | 6060 | 4.24 | 0.04 | 3.5 | –5.36 | HD35759b | 3.76 | Hébrard et al. (2016)
HD89307 | 5975 | 4.50 | –0.05 | 0.7 | – | – | – | – | – | HD89307b | 2.0 | Boisse et al. (2012)
HD113337 | 6750 | 4.30 | 0.14 | 1.3 | 6669 | 4.21 | 0.09 | 6.0 | – | HD113337b | 3.00 | Borgniet et al. (2019)
HD141399 | 5515 | 4.35 | 0.47 | 0.7 | 5600 | 4.28 | 0.35 | 2.9 | –5.26 | HD141399b | 0.45 | Hébrard et al. (2016)
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | HD141399c | 1.33 |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | HD141399d | 1.18 |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | HD141399e | 0.66 |
HD143105 | 6280 | 4.30 | 0.01 | 1.7 | 6380 | 4.37 | 0.15 | 9.1 | –5.00 | HD143105b | 1.21 | Hébrard et al. (2016)
HD150706 | 5950 | 4.50 | 0.05 | 0.8 | 5961 | 4.50 | –0.01 | 3.7 | –4.47 | HD150706b | 2.71 | Boisse et al. (2012)
HD154345 | 5503 | 4.40 | –0.05 | 0.6 | – | – | – | – | – | HD154345b | 1.0 | Boisse et al. (2012)
HD159243 | 6085 | 4.55 | 0.14 | 0.8 | 6123 | 4.55 | 0.05 | 3.8 | –4.65 | HD159243b | 1.13 | Moutou et al. (2014)
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | HD159243c | 1.9 |
HD164595 | 5725 | 4.40 | –0.01 | 0.6 | 5790 | 4.44 | –0.04 | 2.1 | –4.86 | HD164595b | 0.05 | Courcol et al. (2015)
HD191806 | 5807 | 4.30 | 0.36 | 0.7 | 6010 | 4.45 | 0.30 | 3.3 | –4.85 | HD191806b | 8.52 | Díaz et al. (2016)
HD214823 | 5980 | 3.90 | 0.13 | 1.2 | 6215 | 4.05 | 0.17 | 5.7 | –4.79 | HD191806c | 19.4 | Díaz et al. (2016)
HD219828 | 5850 | 4.10 | 0.18 | 1.0 | 5891 | 4.08 | 0.19 | 2.9 | –5.12 | HD219828b | 15.1 | Santos et al. (2016)
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | HD219828c | 0.07 |
HD220842 | 5938 | 4.15 | –0.10 | 1.0 | 5960 | 4.24 | –0.17 | 3.4 | –5.17 | HD220842b | 3.18 | Hébrard et al. (2016)
HD221585 | 5562 | 4.10 | 0.28 | 0.8 | 5620 | 4.05 | 0.29 | 3.7 | –4.86 | HD221585b | 1.61 | Díaz et al. (2016)
HD222155 | 5665 | 3.95 | –0.05 | 0.6 | 5765 | 4.10 | –0.11 | 3.2 | –5.06 | HD222155b | 1.90 | Boisse et al. (2012)
HIP65407 | 5354 | 4.50 | 0.35 | 0.5 | 5460 | 4.47 | 0.25 | 2.8 | –4.60 | HIP65407b | 0.43 | Hébrard et al. (2016)
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | HIP65407c | 0.78 |
HIP91258 | 5515 | 4.65 | 0.30 | 0.9 | 5519 | 4.53 | 0.23 | 3.5 | –4.65 | HIP91258b | 1.07 | Moutou et al. (2014)
HIP109384 | 5179 | 4.40 | –0.24 | 0.8 | 5180 | 4.43 | –0.26 | 2.7 | –5.02 | HIP109384b | 1.56 | Hébrard et al. (2016)
HIP109600 | 5525 | 4.65 | –0.07 | 0.7 | 5530 | 4.45 | –0.12 | 2.7 | –5.07 | HIP109600b | 2.68 | Hébrard et al. (2016)

##  3 Stellar parameters

The initial effective temperatures, $T_{\rm eff}$, were derived through a
method based on line-depth ratios for spectral-line pairs with different low-
level excitation potentials taking advantage of the calibrations developed by
Kovtyukh et al. (2003). Then, the final effective temperatures were determined
by imposing the condition of independence of the Fe I abundance on the
excitation potential. These latter temperatures are given in Table 1 and
represent the values adopted for the abundance analysis.

The surface gravities $\log\,g$ were obtained through the Fe i/Fe ii
ionisation balance, which means that the iron abundances derived from the
lines of neutral and ionised iron were forced to be equal. In our case, the
difference between these values does not exceed 0.03 dex. The microturbulent
velocity V${\rm t}$ was determined by removing any correlation between the Fe
i abundances and EWs of the lines. Using such iterative procedure, we
determined the parameters by changing them sequentially, requiring that the
slope of the Fe i abundances with respect to the excitation potential (for
$T_{\rm eff}$) or EW (for V${\rm t}$) was almost zero and that the difference
between the mean iron abundances obtained from the Fe i and Fe ii lines did
not exceed 0.03 dex (for $\log\,g$). This procedure made it possible to
determine $T_{\rm eff}$ with an accuracy (1 $\sigma$) exceeding 60 K and both
surface gravities and microturbulent velocity with an accuracy of about 0.1
dex. We employed the iron abundance obtained from the Fe i lines as the
metallicity [Fe/H] of the studied stars. The neutral iron lines were used due
to their large number in the spectra with known reliable atomic parameters.

Table 2: Mean difference and standard deviation between atmospheric parameters derived in this study and those obtained by other authors ($n$ is the number of stars in common). $\Delta$$T_{\rm eff}$, K |  $\Delta$$\log\,g$ |  $\Delta$[Fe/H] | n | source
---|---|---|---|---
–22 $\pm$ 36 | –0.02$\pm$0.12 | –0.04 $\pm$0.04 | 9 | Brewer et al. (2016)
–10 $\pm$ 28 | –0.04$\pm$0.08 | –0.02 $\pm$0.10 | 3 |  Takeda & Kawanomoto (2005), Takeda et al. (2007)
25 $\pm$ 35 | 0.04$\pm$0.06 | –0.05 $\pm$0.07 | 7 | Ramírez et al. (2012)
10 $\pm$ 84 | –0.01$\pm$0.08 | –0.05 $\pm$0.12 | 11 | Petigura & Marcy (2011)
–48 $\pm$ 55 | –0.11$\pm$0.12 | –0.06 $\pm$0.03 | 6 | Gonzalez, Carlson & Tobin (2010)
29 $\pm$ 44 | 0.05$\pm$0.08 | –0.04 $\pm$0.03 | 7 | Santos et al. (2013)
38 $\pm$ 64 | 0.00$\pm$0.08 | –0.06 $\pm$0.06 | 7 | Sousa et al. (2015)
–9 $\pm$ 44 | –0.03$\pm$0.10 | –0.08 $\pm$0.07 | 7 | Aguilera-Gómez, Ramírez & Chanamé (2018)

A comparison of our parameter values with the data reported in the papers used
for sampling the target stars is shown in Table 1. The difference between
atmospheric parameters derived in this study and those earlier obtained by
other authors (for all stars in common) is shown in Table 2. As results from
the comparison of our $T_{\rm eff}$, $\log\,g$, and [Fe/H] with those
determined by other authors, provided that the star HD 12484 is excluded
(Petigura & Marcy, 2011), the standard deviation of the difference does not
exceed $\pm$70 K, $\pm$0.12, and $\pm$0.10, respectively. The mean difference
and average standard deviation are 1.6$\pm$49 K, –0.02 $\pm$0.09, and –0.05
$\pm$0.07, respectively. We also compared the parameter definitions reported
by other authors for each investigated star. The differences between our
parameter determinations and average values reported by other authors, but
without measurements from the SOPHIE exoplanet consortium, are shown in Table
3 for each star of our sample. Such a comparison was made for 21 stars (as
there were no parameter determinations reported by other authors for the
remaining four stars). The differences and standard deviations resulting from
the comparison of our data with the average values of $T_{\rm eff}$,
$\log\,g$, and [Fe/H] reported by other authors are –9.9$\pm$38,
0.01$\pm$0.10, 0.06$\pm$0.06, respectively. The comparison of our data and
those from literature is very good, as illustrated in Table 2 and Table 3.

Table 3: Comparison of stellar parameters obtained in this study and by other authors for some individual stars of our sample (”n” is the number of measurements of $T_{\rm eff}$, $\log\,g$, and [Fe/H]). HD/HIP |  $T_{\rm eff}$, K | $\log\,g$ | [Fe/H] |  $<$$T_{\rm eff}$$>$, K |  $\sigma$, $\pm$ |  $<$$\log\,g$$>$ |  $\sigma$, $\pm$ |  $<$[Fe/H]$>$ |  $\sigma$, $\pm$ | n |  $\delta$ $T_{\rm eff}$, K |  $\delta$ $\log\,g$ |  $\delta$ [Fe/H]
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---
| (our data) | (mean from literature) |
12484 | 5831 | 4.40 | 0.05 | 5870 | 47 | 4.47 | 0.08 | 0.12 | 0.02 | 5,5,5 | –39 | –0.07 | –0.07
13908 | 6150 | 4.00 | 0.05 | 6199 | 112 | 4.01 | – | –0.08 | – | 3,1,1 | –49 | –0.01 | 0.13
16175 | 5977 | 4.30 | 0.37 | 5976 | 52 | 4.16 | 0.10 | 0.30 | 0.04 | 11,9,9 | 1 | 0.14 | 0.07
17674 | 5904 | 4.28 | –0.15 | 5893 | 22 | 4.09 | 0.09 | –0.18 | 0.05 | 8,4,5 | 11 | 0.19 | 0.03
24040 | 5800 | 4.25 | 0.23 | 5800 | 61 | 4.24 | 0.10 | 0.17 | 0.03 | 16,14,13 | 0 | 0.01 | 0.06
29021 | 5550 | 4.30 | –0.18 | 5594 | 46 | 4.36 | 0.05 | -0.22 | 0.07 | 5,3,3 | –44 | –0.06 | 0.04
35759 | 5917 | 4.10 | –0.04 | 5998 | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | –81 | – | –
89307 | 5975 | 4.50 | –0.05 | 5944 | 46 | 4.39 | 0.13 | –0.15 | 0.05 | 16,15,14 | 31 | 0.11 | 0.10
113337 | 6750 | 4.30 | 0.14 | 6696 | 90 | 4.40 | 0.30 | 0.17 | – | 3,2,1 | 54 | –0.10 | –0.03
141399 | 5515 | 4.35 | 0.47 | 5570 | 44 | 4.21 | 0.04 | 0.34 | 0.02 | 2,2,2 | –55 | 0.14 | 0.13
143105 | 6280 | 4.30 | 0.01 | 6262 | 42 | – | – | – | – | 2 | 18 | – | –
150706 | 5950 | 4.50 | 0.05 | 5930 | 34 | 4.48 | 0.06 | –0.04 | 0.04 | 15,13,13 | 20 | 0.02 | 0.09
154345 | 5503 | 4.40 | –0.05 | 5458 | 61 | 4.44 | 0.11 | –0.13 | 0.05 | 21,19,17 | 45 | –0.04 | 0.08
159243 | 6085 | 4.55 | 0.14 | 6078 | 10 | 4.44 | – | – | – | 2,1,0 | 7 | 0.11 | –
164595 | 5725 | 4.40 | –0.01 | 5726 | 27 | 4.40 | 0.06 | –0.08 | 0.03 | 18,16,16 | –1 | 0.00 | 0.07
191806 | 5807 | 4.30 | 0.36 | - | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | –
214823 | 5980 | 3.90 | 0.13 | 6008 | 148 | 3.90 | 0.04 | 0.09 | 0.07 | 4,2,2 | –28 | 0.00 | 0.04
219828 | 5850 | 4.10 | 0.18 | 5856 | 52 | 4.13 | 0.06 | 0.15 | 0.03 | 14,13,12 | –6 | –0.03 | 0.03
220842 | 5938 | 4.15 | –0.10 | 5909 | 50 | 4.19 | 0.03 | –0.24 | 0.04 | 5,3,3 | 29 | –0.04 | 0.14
221585 | 5562 | 4.10 | 0.28 | 5563 | 44 | 4.00 | 0.06 | 0.29 | 0.05 | 7,7,7 | –1 | 0.10 | –0.01
222155 | 5665 | 3.95 | –0.05 | 5735 | 77 | 3.99 | 0.07 | –0.16 | 0.05 | 9,8,7 | –70 | –0.04 | 0.11
HIP65407 | 5354 | 4.50 | 0.35 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | –
HIP91258 | 5515 | 4.65 | 0.30 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | –
HIP109384 | 5179 | 4.40 | –0.24 | 5224 | 71 | 4.59 | 0.04 | –0.28 | 0.07 | 2,2,2 | –45 | –0.19 | 0.04
HIP109600 | 5525 | 4.65 | –0.07 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |

##  4 Chemical composition

The elemental abundances were determined under the LTE condition employing the
grid of model atmospheres (Castelli & Kurucz, 2004). The each stellar model
was obtained by interpolating on the grid in accordance with the required
combination of stellar parameters $T_{\rm eff}$ and $\log\,g$. The Kurucz
WIDTH9 code was used to determine the LTE abundance based the equivalent
widths of lines of Na, Mg, Al, S, Si, Ca, Ti, Cr, Fe, Ni, Zn, Y, Zr, Ce, Pr,
Nd and Sm elements. The list of used lines are presented in Table LABEL:lines
in the Appendix (on line). We did not use strong lines (with EWs $>$ 150 mÅ)
due to noticeable effects of damping. The latest modified spectral synthesis
code STARSP Tsymbal (1996) was employed to calculate the line profiles for Li,
C, O, Sc, V, Mn, Ba, and Eu. The determination of the abundances of scandium,
vanadium, manganese, barium and europium was carried out taking into account
the hyperfine structure (HFS). We used five lines (5432.5, 6013.5, 6016.7.
6021.7, 6021.8 ÅÅ) for manganese and two lines (4129.7 and 6645.1 ÅÅ) for
europium with and the HFS data from Prochaska & McWilliam (2000) and Ivans et
al. (2006), respectively. For scandium, vanadium, and barium we took the
parameters of HFS from the last version of VALD database
222http://vald.astro.uu.se/ vald/php/vald.php. We used five lines (5315.3,
5641.0, 5667.1, 5684.2, 6245.6 ÅÅ) for scandium and four lines of vanadium
(6081.4, 6090.2, 6242.8, 6243.1 ÅÅ). For barium we explored three lines
5853.7, 6141.7, 6496.9 ÅÅ. The first two lines practically have an
insignificant influence of the hyperfine structure; the 6496.9 Å line requires
taking into account the HFS (Korotin et al., 2015). The damping constants for
Ba lines are missing in VALD and we adopted the values from Korotin et al.
(2015). All oscillator strengths were scaled by the solar isotopic ratios.
Examples of some lines are shown in Fig. 1.

To compute synthetic spectra, the following effects were taken into
consideration in addition to natural broadening of atomic lines: 1)
instrumental broadening through the resolving power (R) of the spectrograph;
2) the projection of the rotation velocity $v$sin$i$ obtained in the base
papers and listed for each star in Table 1; and 3) large-scale atmospheric
motions $V_{\rm macro}$, determined by fitting the computed synthetic spectrum
from several unblended iron lines, factoring in $v$sin$i$. Since for three
stars, namely, HD 24040, HD 89307, and HD 154345 the $v$sin$i$ values in the
basic works were missing, to calculate the synthetic spectrum, we have
computed their rotational velocities ($v$sin$i$) using a relation, calibrated
by Queloz et al. (1998) and giving $v$sin$i$ as a function of $\sigma_{RV}$,
the standard deviation of the ELODIE cross-correlation function approximated
by a Gaussian. We used the average $\sigma_{RV}$ values from the ELODIE
spectral archive of these stars. We obtained the following values: for HD
24040, $v$sin$i$= 2.3km s-1, for HD 89307, $v$sin$i$= 2.6km s-1, and for HD
154345, $v$sin$i$= 1.3km s-1. Gonzalez, Carlson & Tobin (2010) presented the
$v$sin$i$ for two of these stars, namely, HD 89307, $v$sin$i$= 2.9km s-1, and
HD 154345, $v$sin$i$= 1.5km s-1. All these values are consistent within the
uncertainties and agree with those reported in Mishenina et al. (2012).

The determination of Li, C and O abundances based on the synthetic spectra
calculations will be discussed in more detail below.

The use of the LTE approximation in our analysis does not introduce
significant inaccuracies into the obtained values of the abundances of
elements, since the formation of the lines used in this work is not subject to
a noticeable deviation from LTE in the considered range of stellar atmosphere
parameters. Thus, the NLTE corrections depend on $T_{\rm eff}$ and $\log\,g$,
but their values do not exceed 0.1 for the sodium lines 5688, 6154, 6160 ÅÅ
(Korotin et al., 2014); 0.05 for magnesium lines of 4730, 5528, 5711, 6318,
6319.2, 6319.4 ÅÅ (Mishenina et al., 2004); 0.10-0.15 for aluminum 6696.0,
6698.6 ÅÅ lines (Andrievsky et al., 2008); 0.1 for barium 6141.71, 6496.90 ÅÅ
lines, being insignificant for 5853.6 Å (Korotin et al., 2011), the strong
barium line at 4554 Å was not included in our analysis; 0.05-0.10 for europium
4129.7 and 6645.1 Å lines (Mashonkina & Gehren, 2000). An examination of
possible NLTE effects on the manganese lines based on the abundance
determinations from the lines of different multiplets (which have also been
used in this study) does not show any systematic variations of abundances
between these lines with the Mn abundances being correct within an uncertainty
of 0.1 dex (Mishenina et al., 2015). Besides, as shown, for instance, by
Adibekyan et al. (2017), the NLTE corrections to the Mg abundance
determinations do not lead to any significant changes in the results or
conclusions drawn earlier under LTE conditions.

The elemental abundances determined relative to the solar ones with the number
of lines used for each element are listed in Table A2 in the Appendix (on
line) for all target stars. The solar abundances were calculated by us earlier
(Mishenina et al., 2017) using the solar EWs, which were measured from the
reflected spectra of the Moon and asteroids obtained with the SOPHIE
spectrograph. The oscillator strengths,$\log\,gf$, of the lines are the same
as the ones used in Mishenina et al. (2017) for the Sun, and are taken from
the VALD (Kupka et al., 1999). A comparison of the adopted solar abundances
with the solar elemental abundances reported by Asplund et al. (2009) was
presented in Mishenina et al. (2017). In this study, we use the same list of
lines as in Mishenina et al. (2017) and the solar abundance from Asplund et
al. (2009).

---
Figure 1: Observed (asterisks) and calculated (solid line) spectra in the
region of Li I 6707 Å line for HD 12484 (top panel), CI 5052 Å line for HD
221585 and C I 5380 Å line for HD17674 (middle panels), Eu II 4129 Å line for
HIP109384 (bottom panel).

###  4.1 Li abundance

The Li abundances log A(Li) (in unit of log A(H) = 12) in the investigated
stars were obtained by the 7Li line at 6707 Å throught the spectral synthesis
method. The line list around the Li I line is taken from Mishenina & Tsymbal
(1997). An example of spectral fitting for the star HD 12484 is shown on the
upper panel of Fig. 1. The study of departures from LTE in the case of the
lithium line 6707 Å was presented in Lind, Asplund & Barklem (2009). For our
target stars, the corrections do not exceed $\pm$0.10 dex.

Our Li abundances and their comparison with those obtained by the authors are
given in Table 4. For HD 16175 and 113337, the Li abundances have not been
determined due to the distortion of the spectrum in the region of the lithium
line.

Table 4: Our log A(Li) (column 1) compared with those obtained by other authors: 2 - Aguilera-Gómez, Ramírez & Chanamé (2018), 3 - Gonzalez, Carlson & Tobin (2010), 4 - Ramírez et al. (2012), 5 - Delgado Mena et al. (2015), 6 - Stonkutė et al. (2020). HD | HIP | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---
12484 | 9519 | 2.93 | 2.99 | – | – | – | –
13908 | 10743 | 1.38 |  $<$1.35 | – | – | – | –
16175 | 12191 | – | 2.68 | 2.45 | – | 2.78 | –
17674 | 13291 | 1.8 | – | – | – | – | –
24040 | 17960 | 1.1 | 0.99 | – | – | – | –
29021 | 21571 | 1.0 | – | – | – | – | –
35759 | 25883 | 2.73 | – | – | – | – | –
89307 | 50473 | 2.25 | 2.23 | 2.1 | – | 2.31 | –
113337 | 63584 | – | – | – | – | – | –
141399 | 77301 | 0.7 | – | – | – | – | –
143105 | 77838 | 2.3 | – | – | – | – | –
150706 | 80902 | 2.6 | 2.59 | 2.46 | – | – | 2.55
154345 | 83389 |  $<$0.5 |  $<$-0.15 |  $<$-0.29 | – | – |  $<$0.05
159243 | 85911 | 2.6 | – | – | – | – | –
164595 | 88194 | 1.0 | 0.78 | – | 0.75 | – |  $<$1.05
191806 | 99306 | 2.81 | – | – | – | – | –
214823 | 111928 | 1.5 | – | – | – | – | –
219828 | 115100 | 2.3 | 2.28 | 2.17 | – | – | –
220842 | 115714 | 1.16 | 1.06 | – | 1.06 | – | –
221585 | 116221 | 1.62 | – | – | – | – | –
222155 | 116616 | 0.93 | 1.05 | – | 0.58 | – | –
– | 65407 | 1.09 | – | – | – | – | –
– | 91258 | 0.0 | – | – | – | – | –
– | 109384 | 0.5 | 0.34 | – | 0.34 | – | –
– | 109600 | 1.0 | – | – | – | – | –

The results from different authors are in good agreement with the exception of
stars exhibiting low lithium abundances. Such a discrepancy is mainly due to
the difference in the quality of the employed spectra, resolving power (R),
signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) and also to different stellar parameters.

###  4.2 C and O abundances

The carbon abundances were determined in LTE approximations and using the
following C I lines: 5052.17 Å ($\log\,gf$= –1.304), 5380.34 Å ($\log\,gf$=
–1.615), 6587.61 Å ($\log\,gf$=–1.021). Small NLTE corrections in the derived
abundances lower than 0.05 dex were applied for the lines listed above (Caffau
et al., 2010). A comparison between the synthetic and observed spectra for the
CI lines at 5052Å (HD 221585), and at 5380 Å line (HD 17674) is illustrated in
Fig. 1 as an example.

---
Figure 2: Observed (asterisks) and calculated (solid line) spectra in the
region of [O I] 6300.3 Å line for four stars with different stellar
parameters.

The LTE abundances of oxygen were determined using the list of lines from the
VALD database (Kupka et al., 1999, version 2018) by employing the [OI] line at
6300.30 Å($\log\,gf$= –9.818), which is unaffected by NLTE (Mishenina et al.,
2000), taking into account the blending with Ni I line at 6300.34 Å, which is
an isotopic splitting of 58Ni and 60Ni, with the total oscillator strength for
the two isotopes $\log\,gf$= –2.11 (Johansson et al., 2003). As an example, in
Fig. 2 we present the resulting calculation of the oxygen line profile for
four stars with different parameters. Our determinations of the C and O
abundances and their comparison with the data reported by other authors are
given in Table 5 and plotted in Fig. 3.

Table 5: Our C and O abundance determinations compared with those obtained by other authors: 1 - Petigura & Marcy (2011), 2 - Brewer et al. (2016). HD | HIP | [O/H] | [C/H] | C/O | [O/H] | [C/H] | C/O | [O/H] | [C/H] | C/O
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---
|  | our |  |  | 1 |  |  | 2 |  |
12484 | 9519 | 0.09 | 0.05 | 0.50 | – | –0.15 | – | 0.09 | 0.05 | 0.50
13908 | 10743 | 0.01 | –0.08 | 0.45 | – | – | – | – | – | –
16175 | 12191 | 0.40 | 0.29 | 0.43 | – | – | – | 0.33 | 0.20 | 0.41
17674 | 13291 | 0.01 | –0.11 | 0.48 | – | – | – | – | – | –
24040 | 17960 | 0.14 | 0.13 | 0.54 | 0.15 | 0.18 | 0.59 | 0.20 | 0.14 | 0.48
29021 | 21571 | –0.21 | –0.18 | 0.59 | – | – | – | – | – | –
35759 | 25883 | 0.16 | 0.04 | 0.42 | – | – | – | – | – | –
89307 | 50473 | 0.08 | –0.16 | 0.32 | – | – | – | – | – | —
113337 | 63584 | 0.11 | 0.06 | 0.49 | – | – | – | – | – | –
141399 | 77301 | 0.41 | 0.37 | 0.40 | – | – | – | 0.33 | 0.27 | 0.48
143105 | 77838 | 0.09 | 0.10 | 0.56 | – | – | – | – | – | –
150706 | 80902 | 0.04 | –0.10 | 0.40 | – | – | – | –0.02 | –0.01 | 0.56
154345 | 83389 | –0.04 | –0.15 | 0.43 | – | – | – | –0.10 | –0.15 | 0.49
159243 | 85911 | 0.06 | 0.04 | 0.53 | – | – | – | – | – | –
164595 | 88194 | –0.05 | –0.07 | 0.53 | –0.03 | 0.01 | 0.60 | 0.02 | –0.05 | 0.47
191806 | 99306 | 0.28 | 0.25 | 0.51 | – | – | – | – | – | –
214823 | 111928 | 0.11 | 0.05 | 0.48 | 0.02 | 0.10 | 0.66 | 0.25 | 0.04 | 0.34
219828 | 115100 | 0.13 | 0.11 | 0.53 | –0.03 | 0.16 | 0.87 | 0.22 | 0.11 | 0.43
220842 | 115714 | –0.06 | –0.13 | 0.47 | – | – | – | – | – | –
221585 | 116221 | 0.28 | 0.29 | 0.62 | – | – | – | – | – | –
222155 | 116616 | 0.07 | –0.11 | 0.36 | – | – | – | – | – | –
– | 65407 | 0.36 | 0.27 | 0.45 | – | – | – | – | – | –
– | 91258 | 0.31 | 0.27 | 0.48 | – | – | – | – | – | –
– | 109384 | 0.00 | –0.13 | 0.41 | – | – | – | – | – | –
— | 109600 | –0.06 | –0.02 | 0.60 | – | – | – | – | – | –
---
Figure 3: Our [C/H] and [O/H] values compared with those reported by Petigura
& Marcy (2011) (circles) and Brewer et al. (2016) (triangles).

Our carbon abundances agree well with those obtained by Brewer et al. (2016);
however, the data reported by Petigura & Marcy (2011), slightly differ from
our values, which are lower.

###  4.3 Errors in abundance determinations

The statistical (internal) errors of abundance determinations were calculated
as the quadratic sum of errors arising from the uncertainty of the atmospheric
parameters. To estimate this we derived the elemental abundances for three
stars with different parameters, namely, HD 113337 ($T_{\rm eff}$= 6750 K,
$\log\,g$= 4.30, V${\rm t}$= 1.3 km s-1, [Fe/H] = 0.14), HD 150706 ($T_{\rm
eff}$= 5950 K, $\log\,g$= 4.50, V${\rm t}$= 0.8 km s-1, [Fe/H] = 0.05), HIP
109384 ($T_{\rm eff}$= 5179 K, $\log\,g$= 4.40, V${\rm t}$= 0.8 km s-1, [Fe/H]
= –0.24) while changing $T_{\rm eff}$ of +70 K, $\log\,g$ of +0.12, and V${\rm
t}$ of = 0.10 km s-1. These values are somewhat different from the errors of
the parameters indicated (stated) by us ($\pm$60 K, $\pm$0.10dex, $\pm$0.10km
s-1), but corroborated with the results of other authors obtained for
individual stars and for the stars in common in different works and they may
reflect systematic (external) errors that are typically due to use of
different model atmospheres, codes, etc. The effects of uncertainties in
atmospheric parameters on the accuracy of elemental abundance determinations
for these stars is given in Table 6. As it can be seen from Table 6 the total
abundance determination error for all elements does not exceed 0.10 dex. A
comparison with the results of other authors has shown that external or
systematic errors caused by different approaches and methods in the
determination of stellar parameters, are comparable to our error values and
should not significantly affect the results we obtained.

Table 6: Compilation of random errors due to uncertainties in atmospheric parameters. HD 11337 ($T_{\rm eff}$= 6750 K, $\log\,g$= 4.30, V${\rm t}$= 1.3 km s-1, [Fe/H] = 0.14); HD 150706 (5950/4.50/0.8/ 0.05); HIP 109384 (5179/4.40/0.8/ –0.24). | HD 113337 | HD 150706 | HIP 109384
---|---|---|---
El |  $\delta$ $T_{\rm eff}$+ |  $\delta$$\log\,g$+ |  $\delta$V${\rm t}$+ | tot+ |  $\delta$ $T_{\rm eff}$+ |  $\delta$ $\log\,g$+ |  $\delta$ V${\rm t}$+ | tot+ |  $\delta$ $T_{\rm eff}$+ |  $\delta$$\log\,g$+ |  $\delta$ V${\rm t}$+ | tot+
Li i | 0.05 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.05 | 0.06 | –0.01 | 0.00 | 0.06 | 0.08 | –0.01 | 0.00 | 0.08
C i | –0.02 | 0.03 | 0.00 | 0.04 | –0.04 | 0.06 | 0.00 | 0.07 | –0.06 | 0.03 | 0.00 | 0.07
O i | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.00 | 0.05 | 0.01 | 0.04 | 0.00 | 0.04 | –0.02 | 0.05 | 0.00 | 0.05
Na i | 0.03 | –0.01 | –0.01 | 0.03 | 0.03 | –0.02 | –0.01 | 0.04 | 0.05 | –0.02 | 0.00 | 0.05
Mg i | 0.02 | 0.01 | –0.01 | 0.03 | 0.02 | –0.01 | –0.01 | 0.03 | 0.02 | –0.02 | 0.00 | 0.03
Al i | 0.03 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.03 | 0.04 | –0.01 | –0.01 | 0.05 | 0.03 | –0.01 | –0.01 | 0.03
Si i | 0.02 | 0.00 | –0.02 | 0.03 | 0.01 | –0.01 | –0.01 | 0.02 | –0.01 | –0.01 | –0.01 | 0.02
S i | –0.01 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 0.02 | –0.04 | 0.05 | 0.00 | 0.06 | –0.04 | 0.03 | 0.00 | 0.03
Ca i | 0.05 | –0.01 | –0.02 | 0.05 | 0.04 | –0.03 | -0.02 | 0.05 | 0.06 | –0.03 | –0.02 | 0.07
Sc ii | 0.02 | 0.04 | –0.01 | 0.05 | 0.00 | 0.05 | –0.01 | 0.05 | –0.01 | 0.04 | –0.01 | 0.04
Ti i | 0.05 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.05 | 0.05 | –0.02 | –0.01 | 0.05 | 0.08 | –0.01 | –0.02 | 0.08
Ti ii | 0.01 | 0.03 | –0.01 | 0.03 | 0.00 | 0.05 | –0.01 | 0.05 | –0.01 | 0.05 | –0.01 | 0.05
V i | 0.05 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.05 | 0.07 | –0.01 | 0.00 | 0.07 | 0.09 | 0.00 | –0.01 | 0.09
Cr i | 0.03 | 0.00 | –0.01 | 0.03 | 0.04 | –0.02 | –0.01 | 0.05 | 0.06 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.06
Mn i | 0.03 | –0.01 | –0.02 | 0.04 | 0.04 | –0.02 | –0.02 | 0.05 | 0.04 | –0.02 | –0.03 | 0.05
Fe i | 0.04 | 0.00 | –0.01 | 0.04 | 0.05 | –0.01 | –0.01 | 0.05 | 0.03 | 0.00 | –0.01 | 0.03
Fe ii | 0.00 | 0.03 | –0.02 | 0.04 | –0.02 | 0.05 | –0.01 | 0.05 | –0.05 | 0.04 | –0.01 | 0.06
Ni i | 0.04 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.04 | 0.04 | –0.01 | 0.00 | 0.04 | 0.01 | 0.02 | –0.01 | 0.02
Zn i | 0.04 | 0.01 | –0.02 | 0.05 | 0.01 | 0.01 | –0.02 | 0.03 | –0.02 | 0.01 | –0.02 | 0.03
Y ii | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.00 | 0.04 | 0.00 | 0.04 | 0.00 | 0.04 | 0.00 | 0.05 | 0.00 | 0.05
Zr ii | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.00 | 0.04 | 0.01 | 0.05 | 0.00 | 0.05 | 0.00 | 0.05 | 0.00 | 0.05
Ba ii | 0.05 | 0.01 | –0.05 | 0.07 | 0.03 | 0.01 | –0.04 | 0.05 | 0.02 | 0.01 | –0.03 | 0.04
Ce ii | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.00 | 0.05 | 0.01 | 0.04 | 0.00 | 0.04 | 0.00 | 0.04 | –0.01 | 0.04
Pr ii | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.00 | 0.06 | 0.01 | 0.04 | 0.00 | 0.04 | 0.00 | 0.04 | –0.01 | 0.04
Nd ii | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.00 | 0.05 | 0.02 | 0.05 | 0.00 | 0.05 | 0.01 | 0.05 | –0.01 | 0.05
Sm ii | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.00 | 0.04 | 0.01 | 0.04 | –0.01 | 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.05 | 0.00 | 0.05
Eu ii | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.00 | 0.05 | 0.00 | 0.04 | 0.00 | 0.04 | –0.01 | 0.04 | –0.01 | 0.04

##  5 Results and discussion

The abundance of iron ([Fe/H]) and lithium (log A(Li)), as well as the carbon-
to-oxygen (C/O) and magnesium-to-silicon (Mg/Si) ratios, are important
parameters in studying planet host stars in depth. The ratio of volatiles to
refractory elements may be an important key to understand the formation of
low-mass terrestial planets and giant-planet cores. A sample of stars with
well-detected planetary systems, as that examined in this study, may clarify
the possible constraints for the connection between these chemical parameters
and the presence of planets.This is discussed in more detail below.

###  5.1 [Fe/H] versus $T_{\rm eff}$

To explain the metallicity excess in massive exoplanet host stars, two
hypotheses were proposed: the self-enrichment (or pollution) mechanism and a
primordial origin of metal overabundance. The primordial cloud is the most
likely origin for the metal richness of giant planet host stars (Gonzalez,
1997). This hypothesis has been substantiated by models of planet formation
and evolution, based on exoplanet formation scenarios as such the core
accretion (CA) and tidal downsizing (see in detail, Adibekyan, 2019, and
references therein). The first statistics about extrasolar planets (Mortier et
al., 2012) show that the presence of giant planets apparently depends on the
stellar metallicity and mass. For instance, such planets are more frequently
observed around metal-rich stars with an exponential increase in the planet
occurrence rate with metallicity; the occurrence rate (or frequency) for hot
Jupiters around metal-poor stars is less than 1.0% at one sigma and frequency
is higher for star with [Fe/H] $>$–0.7 than those with [Fe/H] $<$–0.7 (Mortier
et al., 2012).

The range of metallicities of the our sample is –0.3 $<$ [Fe/H] $<$ 0.4. The
correlation between [Fe/H] and the effective temperature $T_{\rm eff}$ for our
target stars is depicted in Fig. 4. As follows from the metallicity range of
the studied stars massive planets in our sample are located not only around
stars with metallicities higher than the solar one (in most cases), but also
around stars with slight metal deficiencies. The bottom panel of Fig. 4 shows
a positive correlation between planetary mass and metallicity. The trend seem
to be present (slope of 4.33$\pm$2.03) even if the two most massive planets
with masses greater than 13 $M_{J}$ (these objects can be Brown Dwarfs) are
excluded. As discussed in Adibekyan (2019), there is a complex interdependence
between planetary mass, stellar mass, and stellar metallicity, which makes
difficult to identify the exact origin of the observed dependence of $M_{pl}$
on [Fe/H].

---
Figure 4: [Fe/H] versus $T_{\rm eff}$ and $M_{pl}$ versus [Fe/H] for our
target stars. The horizontal line corresponds to [Fe/H] = 0. The solid line in
the lower panel represents a linear fit to the data with the value of the
slope indicated in the plot.

###  5.2 Lithium abundance and exoplanets

The dependencies of the Li abundance on the slellar effective temperature
$T_{\rm eff}$, rotational velocity $v$sin$i$ and on age are plotted in Fig.5.
Evolutionary tracks for different ages of Baraffe et al. (2017) and the Li
abundance envelope in the Hyades (see top panel, Thorburn et al., 1993) are
overplotted. Baraffe et al. (2017) studied lithium depletion in low-mass and
solar-like stars as a function of time, applying a new diffusion coefficient
describing extra-mixing occurring at the bottom of a convective envelope. We
see that the lithium abundance behaviour reflects its depletion through
stellar evolution.

The relationship between log A(Li) and rotational velocities $v$sin$i$ is
depicted in the middle panel in Fig.5. The surface Li abundance of a star is
highly sensitive to its rotational velocity during both main and pre-main
sequence evolution (e.g. Beck et al., 2017; Bouvier et al., 2016). Beck et al.
(2017) found that the measured A(Li) were in good agreement with the A(Li)
evolution predicted from a grid of models, which included rotationally-induced
internal mixing. The dependence obtained in this study reflects the role of
rotation in the lithium abundance values, which could be associated with
rotationally-induced internal mixing and also to some extent with stellar
activity (see, e.g., Fig.5, panel $v$sin$i$ versus log$R^{{}^{\prime}}_{\rm
HK}$).

A very important aspect of studying the lithium content in solar analogues is
related to the search for planetary systems and their occurrence. The
correlation between the Li abundance and planet occurrence has been studied in
a series of works, though there is still no clarity in this respect. For
instance, as reported by Gonzalez & Laws (2000); Gonzalez (2008); Israelian et
al. (2004, 2009); Delgado Mena et al. (2014); Figueira et al. (2014), planet-
hosting stars are likely to have lower lithium abundances than stars without
planetary systems. Meanwhile, Carlos, Nissen & Meléndez (2016) have discovered
that the lithium abundance in solar-twin stars depends on stellar age while
there was no indication of any relationship between planet-hosting stars and
strong lithium depletion. Our determination of the Li abundance versus age is
shown in Fig.5 (bottom panel), using the age data from baseline papers. The
plot shows a negative trend at about 1-$\sigma$ significance level. Despite
our sample has a wider $T_{\rm eff}$ range than solar twins, there seems to be
a trend of Li versus age. Given the presence of complex relationships between
lithium content, rotational velocities $v$sin$i$, stellar activity and the
influence of magnetic fields (see, e.g. Mishenina et al., 2012; Katsova,
Livshits & Mishenina, 2013), it appears that this dependence reflects the role
of various physical processes that affect the lithium abundance rather than
results from the presence of planetary systems.

The relationship between the Li abundance and planetary mass can be seen in
Fig.6. The absence of a large number of stars hosting planets with masses
exceeding 5 $M_{J}$ in our sample does not allow us to draw reliable
conclusions.

---
Figure 5: Dependences of the Li abundance on stellar effective temperature
($T_{\rm eff}$) and rotational velocity ($v$sin$i$) and stellar age for our
target stars. Dependance of $v$sin$i$ on chromospheric activity
log$R^{{}^{\prime}}_{\rm HK}$(third panel from the top). In the top panel,
also plotted are the evolutionary tracks from Baraffe et al. (2017) for
different ages (dashed lines) and the Li abundance envelope in the Hyades from
Thorburn et al. (1993) (solid line). Position of the Sun is marked with an
asterisk, the solar parameters are taken from Jofré et al. (2015).
---
Figure 6: Dependences of the Li abundance on planetary mass $M_{pl}$ for our
target stars.

###  5.3 C and O in exoplanet host stars

The obtained values of [C/H], [C/Fe], [O/H], [O/Fe] vs. [Fe/H] are shown in
Fig. 7. The C/O, [C/O] vs. [Fe/H] and C/O, [C/Fe] vs. planetary masses
$M_{pl}$ are depicted in Fig. 8. As can be seen in Fig. 7, the trends of [C/H]
and [O/H] vs. [Fe/H] are corroborated by the data obtained earlier (see
Delgado Mena et al., 2010, their Figs.1,3), and (Suárez-Andrés et al., 2017,
their Fig.5). The obtained dependence of [C/H], [O/H] on the metallicity
[Fe/H] reflects the well-known fact that the production of carbon and oxygen
in the Galaxy (in absolute terms) rises with an increase of the metallicity
due to an additional contribution to the enrichment, besides massive
collapsing supernovae (CCSN or SN II Type), in which oxygen is the dominant
element ejected (Woosley & Weaver, 1995), massive fast-rotating stars, (Maeder
& Meynet, 2012), also from SN Ia and Asymptotic Giant Branch (ABS) stars,
whose yields of elements grow with increasing metallicity above [Fe/H] = –1.0
(e.g. Timmes, Woosley & Weaver, 1995; Nomoto, Thielemann & Yokoi, 1984;
Käppeler et al., 2011; Prantzos et al., 2018).

Decreasing [C/Fe] and [O/Fe] ratios with increasing stellar metallicity
(Fig.7) corroborate observations of C and O in the Galactic disc (e.g. Delgado
Mena et al., 2010; Petigura & Marcy, 2011; Nissen et al., 2014; Suárez-Andrés
et al., 2017). According to models of Galactic Chemical Evolution (GCE), Type
la supernovae start ejecting large amounts of iron and negligible amounts of
oxygen into the interstellar medium beyond about 1 Gyr, which causes the
distinct downturn of [O/Fe] to the solar value. Suárez-Andrés et al. (2017)
drew attention to two differing patterns of behaviour of carbon at [Fe/H]
below and above solar value (see their Figure 5). It may be associated, first
of all, with different nucleosynthesis (sources) of carbon and oxygen at such
metallicities, but not with the fact that stars with massive planets richer in
metals exhibit differing C and O abundances. Reaching more reliable
conclusions require the use of a larger sample of stars and involve the study
of the GCE, which is beyond the scope of this paper. Moreover, Suárez-Andrés
et al. (2017) did not find any clear relationship between the [C/Fe] abundance
ratio and planetary mass. Fig. 8 (bottom panel) substantiates such a result.
Therefore, the C and O abundances in our target stars demonstrate that the
behaviour of carbon and oxygen in stars with planetary systems in the Galactic
disc is quite typical of stars inhabiting the thin disc.

The carbon-to-oxygen ratio C/O is one of the important characteristics of the
structure and chemical composition of planets. Theoretical models of planet
formation and evolution consider both refractory (Bond, O’Brien & Lauretta,
2010) and volatile elements (Thiabaud et al., 2015a), which can provide
information about the protoplanetary disc in which the planet was formed.
Models by Thiabaud et al. (2015b) show that condensation of volatiles varies
with the radial distance and that the C/O ratio can be four times the solar
value in certain regions of the protoplanetary disc. This may lead to the
formation of planets with C/O values in their shells being more than three
times the solar value.

Over several years of investigation of the chemical composition, the values of
this ratio for planet hosts and non-hosts obtained in different studies have
varied from C/O $>$= 1 (e.g. Petigura & Marcy, 2011) to near solar value
(C/O⊙= 0.54) (Teske et al., 2014). The differences in the obtained C
abundances may be associated with a number of factors, primarily the use of
various markers of the carbon abundance (atomic and molecular lines), atomic
and molecular parameters (e.g. $\log\,gf$), quality of spectra, application of
different model atmospheres and methods, and samples of stars, etc. In this
regard, it is important to determine reliable C and O abundances and seek for
correlations between the abundances of these elements and properties of
planets.

The mean value of $<$C/O$>$ for our target is $<$C/O$>$ = 0.48$\pm$0.07, which
agrees well with the mean value of $<$C/O$>$ = 0.45$\pm$0.06 obtained by
Brewer et al. (2016), normalized to the solar carbon abundance adopted in
their study (Grevesse, Asplund & Sauval, 2007) for nine stars in common. At
the same time, the mean C/O ratio is slightely different from the mean C/O =
0.68 $\pm$0.13 obtained by Petigura & Marcy (2011) for four stars in common.
There is only one star in our sample in common with the study by Stonkutė et
al. (2020), namely HD 150706, for which the C, O abundances, as well as the
C/O ratio, are reported; these values show good agreement.

As mentioned earlier, Delgado Mena et al. (2010) and Petigura & Marcy (2011)
found that a significant percentage of high-metallicity solar-type stars have
C/O $>$ 0.8; however, it has been demonstrated in a number of later works that
not so many stars actually have C/O greater than 0.8 (Nissen, 2013; Brewer et
al., 2016; Suárez-Andrés et al., 2018; Stonkutė et al., 2020). Nissen et al.
(2020) have indicated that their 3D non-LTE C/O values support a rising trend
with decreasing age for the old (red) sequence, though all the stars have C/O
ratios clearly below 0.8. All nine stars with C/O = 0.7 have been confirmed to
host planets and they all exhibit high metallicities ranging within 0.18 $<$
[Fe/H] $<$ 0.31. The authors have concluded that it is not feasible to deduce
from their small sample of stars whether it is a high C/O ratio or a high
[Fe/H] (or both) that favours the formation of planets.

The C/O ratios obtained in this study range from 0.32 to 0.62 with the mean
value of $<$C/O$>$ = 0.48 $\pm$0.07, which is well consistent with the data of
Suárez-Andrés et al. (2018). The stars with massive planets investigated in
this study show a wide range of C/O ratios, but do not exhibit such a high C/O
ratio close to 0.8. In this study, the mean value relative to the solar one is
$<$[C/O]$>$ = –0.07$\pm$0.07; it enables us to deduce that our studied stars
with massive planets have [C/O] ratios slightly lower, but close to the solar
one within the errors. This result does not unambiguously confirm the finding
reported by Pavlenko et al. (2019), in particular that the metal-rich dwarfs
with planets are overabundant in carbon with an average difference of
$<$[C/O]$>$ = 0.05 $\pm$0.05; in our case for stars with [Fe/H] $>$ 0 this
value is $<$[C/O]$>$ = –0.05 $\pm$0.05. In Fig.8, the C/O ratio is also shown
as a function of the planetary mass, but no trend is evident.

---
Figure 7:  [C/H], [C/Fe], [O/H], [O/Fe] versus [Fe/H].
---
Figure 8:  [C/O], C/O versus [Fe/H] and C/O and [C/Fe] versus planetary mass
(in $M_{J}$).

###  5.4 Mg and Si in planet host stars

Magnesium and silicon are key planet-building elements and Mg/Si ratio may be
used to detect low-mass planets and specify their chemical composition and
mineralogy (Bond, O’Brien & Lauretta, 2010). Thiabaud et al. (2015b) have
shown that the elemental ratios Mg/Si and Fe/Si in planets are essentially
identical to those in the star. Our result for Mg and Si are listed in Table
A2 in Appendix and their comparison with the values for the main sequence
stars reported in Mishenina et al. (2016) is depicted in Fig. 9 (upper panel).
The stars studied in Mishenina et al. (2016) have the same range of parameters
as the stars of the current work and belong to the Galactic thin disc.

As can be seen from Fig.9, the dependence of Mg/Fe on [Fe/H] is similar to the
trend for dwarfs that substantiates the findings in Adibekyan et al. (2015),
in particular, that the [Mg/Si] ratio depends significantly on metallicity
through the GCE. Later, Brewer et al. (2016) also showed that the Mg and Si
behaviour could reflect the overall metallicity trend traced by [Fe/H], i.e.
the GCE.

---
Figure 9:  [Mg/Si] versus [Fe/H] for stars from Mishenina et al. (2016) (dots)
and this study (open circles); Mg/Si versus [Fe/H] and planetary mass (in MJ).

We obtained Mg/Si ratios ranging from 0.83 to 0.96 for four stars of our
sample with high-mass planets and from 1.0 to 1.8 for the remaining 21 stars.
It supports the finding in Suárez-Andrés et al. (2018), that 85% stars with
high-mass companions have the Mg/Si ratios between one and two while the other
15% exhibit Mg/Si values below one.

Fig.9 (bottom panel) illustrates the dependence of [Mg/Si] on planetary
masses. Just a trace of a downward trend can be seen in this figure; however,
the large scatter of the [Mg/Si] values in the region of lower masses (1-5
MJ), along with the small number of stars with planets of masses exceeding 10
MJ, do not allow us to draw a confident conclusion about the dependence of the
planetary mass on the [Mg/Si] ratio in the host star.

##  6 Elemental abundances versus condensation temperatures $T_{cond}$

As reported in Udry & Santos (2007), the stars known to host giant planets are
expected to be more enriched in refractory elements (i.e. elements with high
condensation temperature $T_{cond}$), because volatiles (having low
$T_{cond}$) may evaporate from infalling bodies before being accreted (e.g.
Gonzalez, 1998; Smith, Cunha & Lazzaro, 2001; Ecuvillon et al., 2006). As
noted earlier by Guillot (2005), the cores of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and
Neptune may contain heavy metals in the form of rocks and ices, which means
that these (massive) planets possess dense cores of different masses. Based on
a correlation between the difference of abundance in the Sun and mean values
in non-hosts with condensation temperature $T_{cond}$, Meléndez et al. (2009)
found that volatile elements are more abundant in the Sun relative to the
solar twins while elements that easily form dust, i.e., refractories, are
underabundant. González Hernández et al. (2013) obtained clear upward
abundance trends with $T_{cond}$ for only four of eight stars hosting super-
Earth-like planets. The authors came to a conclusion that there was no clear
evidence of the relationship between the volatile-to-refractory abundance
ratio and the presence of rocky planets. Later, a different assumption was
made in the studies of Adibekyan et al. (2014, 2015), in particular, that the
chemical peculiarities (small refractory-to-volatile ratios) of planet-hosting
stars could reflect that those stars were older and indicate their inner
Galaxy origin. The GCE, the place of birth in the Galaxy and, probably,
stellar age play an important role in using elemental abundance estimates and
clarifying their relationship with various parameters. Nissen (2015) concluded
that while an unusually low refractory-to-volatile ratio suggests that the
relationship between [El/Fe] and $T_{cond}$ may be used as a signature of the
existence of terrestrial planets around stars, the dependence of [El/Fe] on
the stellar age makes it difficult to employ this relationship as such an
indicator.

As response to the study by Nissen (2015), Spina, Meléndez & Ramírez (2016)
verified whether the chemical evolution of the Galactic disc could explain
different observed slopes of elemental abundance with $T_{cond}$. The authors
claimed that a wide diversity of those slopes was still observed after
subtracting the chemical evolution effect, which could be indicative of some
other processes not related to the GCE that might have affected the
element-$T_{cond}$ slopes. They supposed that such a great difference between
those slopes reflected the difference of exo-planetary systems themselves and
lies in highly dynamic stages of planetary systems during which some portion
of the rocky material surrounds the star (e.g., cores of gaseous planets,
rocky planets, and planetesimals) and fall onto the central star; but other
planetary systems may be subject to quieter processes. Thus, the observed
variety of slopes may correspond to a great number of evolutionary paths of
matter in the circumstellar discs during the formation of planetary systems.
As noted by Tucci Maia et al. (2019),–terrestrial planets (or the core of
giant planets) may influence the surface abundance of its host star in two
ways: i) the accretion of rocky material (planetary engulfment) enriches the
stellar atmosphere in refractories; ii) imprisonment of refractory rich
material into rocky objects that deplete the material accreted by the star
during its formation.

Since the cores of massive planets can affect the surface content of
refractories, we also attempted to compare the volatile and refractory
abundance ratios with $T_{cond}$ (Lodders, 2003) in our sample of stars
hosting massive planets, adjusted for the chemical evolution effects; in other
words, we subtracted the mean elemental abundances in non-hosting solar twin
stars $<$[El/Fe]$>$(st) from the [El/Fe] ratios in our target stars. The
values of $<$[El/Fe]$>$(st) were taken from Mishenina et al. (2016). In that
paper, 33 stars were selected as solar twins for which the average values of
the parameters were $<$$T_{\rm eff}$$>$ = 5800 $\pm$100 K, $<$$\log\,g$$>$ =
4.40$\pm$ 0.09, $<$[Fe/H]$>$= 0.00$\pm$ 0.05.

In Fig. 10 we plot with solid line the differences between elemental
abundances of our target stars and mean values of the solar twins
$\Delta$[El/Fe](star)-$<$[El/Fe]$>$(st), and with dashed line [El/Fe] as a
function of $T_{cond}$.

---
Figure 10: $\Delta$[El/Fe] and [El/Fe] versus $T_{cond}$ for all target stars.
The solid and dashed lines correspond to the abundance values with and without
corrections, respectively, as well as the numbers indicated in each panel give
(upper value with correction, lower value without correction)

We can see that the stars exhibit both positive and negative slope in the
dependencies of $\Delta$[El/Fe]-$T_{cond}$, but most of them do not show
noticeable tilts to the trend line. Two stars, namely,
HD143105(–0.094$\pm$0.039) and HD214823(–0.118$\pm$0.031) show negative slopes
that represent decreasing refractory-to-volatile abundance ratios, and three
stars, namely, HD24040 (–0.075$\pm$0.061), HD35759 (–0.101$\pm$0.074),
HD113337 (–0.066$\pm$0.043) have only slightly decreasing trend. For all the
stars with positive slopes, the error in the slope is higher than its value.

---
Figure 11: Dependence of the $\Delta$[El/Fe]-$T_{cond}$ slope on the planetary
mass in $M_{J}$

What does such a result suggest? The masses in $M_{J}$ unit of the first two
stars mentioned above are 1.21 and 19.2, respectively, and 4.00, 3.76, and
10.0 for the other three stars, respectively. Four of five stars that exhibit
negative slopes are more massive than 3 $M_{J}$. Could this indicate some
pattern in the formation of the nuclei of massive planets? It is difficult to
answer to this question, since our sample also contains other that do not
exhibit any trends. Fig.11 displays the relationship between the resulting
slopes ($\Delta$ [El/Fe] versus $T_{cond}$) and planetary masses in $M_{J}$
for all stars of our target. We can see a slight trend (–0.0044$\pm$0.0022)
indicating possible relationship between negative slope and planetary masses.
However, when excluding the two most massive planets from the sample the slope
of the linear trend changes to –0.0038$\pm$0.0045, making the dependence
insignificant.

##  7 Conclusions

We have determined the abundances of 25 elements, from Li to Eu, in a sample
of stars with detected massive planets with the exception of one target
hosting a Neptun-size mass planetary companion. A comparison of the parameters
in this study with those reported in other papers has shown a good agreement,
which enables us to perform a consistent analysis of planet hosts and a
sufficiently high accuracy and reliability of the derived elemental
abundances. The C/O abundances for 16 of 25 sample stars were calculated for
the first time; these elements play an important role in the formation of
massive planets. We have analyzed the behavior of elemental abundances as a
function of various parameters, such as [Fe/H] and $T_{cond}$, and planetary
masses. This study has yielded the following findings:

i) The resulting trends of [C/Fe] and [O/Fe] vs. [Fe/H] are consistent with
those in the Galactic disc. Our mean values of C/O and [C/O] are $<$C/O$>$ =
0.48 $\pm$0.07 and $<$[C/O]$>$ = –0.07 $\pm$0.07, which are slightly lower
than the solar ones. Different individual values of C/O ratios obtained in
this study are consistent with a large variance of the C and O abundances in
stars hosting massive planetary systems; it does not support the claim that
stars with massive planets must be carbon rich, but reflects the fact that the
stars in our sample have lower carbon abundances as compared to that in the
Sun.

ii) The trend of [Mg/Si] vs. [Fe/H] follows the behaviour of Mg and Si in the
Galactic disc. The Mg/Si ratios obtained in this study range from 0.83 to 0.96
for four stars and from 1.0 to 1.86 for the remaining 21 stars in our sample.
These results agree well with the study by Suárez-Andrés et al. (2018), in
which it was found that 85% stars with high-mass companions had the Mg/Si
ratios ranging between one and two;

iii) A trend of $M_{pl}$ with [Fe/H] and just a trace of trend representing
decreasing Mg/Si ratios with increasing planetary mass have been detected;

iv) The diversity of the observed abundance-$T_{cond}$ slopes found for
planet-hosting stars might be associated with various processes, such as a
variety of evolutionary paths of circumstellar discs, accretion or formation
of the giant-planet rocky core. However, we cannot rule out that there is no
physical relation between presence of planets and the $T_{cond}$ trend.

The data obtained in this study can impose constraints on existing models of
planetary evolution and prove useful in the development and validation of
theoretical studies of the formation and evolution of massive planetary
systems.

## Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the
corresponding author T. Mishenina upon reasonable request.

## Acknowledgements

The authors thank the anonymous referee for a careful reading of the
manuscript and suggestions that significantly improved the manuscript. The
authors are grateful to Sergey Korotin for the discussion on the barium
abundance. V.A. was supported by FCT - Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia
(FCT) through national funds and by FEDER through COMPETE2020 - Programa
Operacional Competitividade e Internacionalização by these grants:
UID/FIS/04434/2019; UIDB/04434/2020; UIDP/04434/2020; PTDC/FIS-AST/32113/2017
& POCI-01-0145-FEDER-032113; PTDC/FIS-AST/28953/2017 &
POCI-01-0145-FEDER-028953. V.A. also acknowledges the support from FCT through
Investigador FCT contracts nr. IF/00650/2015/CP1273/CT0001, and POPH/FSE (EC)
by FEDER funding through the program “Programa Operacional de Factores de
Competitividade - COMPETE”. This article is based upon work from the ChETEC
COST Action (CA16117), supported by COST (European Cooperation in Science and
Technology).

## References

  * Adibekyan (2019) Adibekyan V., 2019, Geosciences, 9, 105
  * Adibekyan et al. (2017) Adibekyan V., Gonçalves da Silva H. M., Sousa S. G., Santos N. C., Delgado Mena E., Hakobyan A. A., 2017, Astrophysics, 60, 325
  * Adibekyan et al. (2015) Adibekyan V. et al., 2015, A&A, 581, L2
  * Adibekyan et al. (2012a) Adibekyan V. Z., Delgado Mena E., Sousa S. G., Santos N. C., Israelian G., González Hernández J. I., Mayor M., Hakobyan A. A., 2012a, A&A, 547, A36
  * Adibekyan et al. (2014) Adibekyan V. Z., González Hernández J. I., Delgado Mena E., Sousa S. G., Santos N. C., Israelian G., Figueira P., Bertran de Lis S., 2014, A&A, 564, L15
  * Adibekyan et al. (2012b) Adibekyan V. Z., Sousa S. G., Santos N. C., Delgado Mena E., González Hernández J. I., Israelian G., Mayor M., Khachatryan G., 2012b, A&A, 545, A32
  * Aguilera-Gómez, Ramírez & Chanamé (2018) Aguilera-Gómez C., Ramírez I., Chanamé J., 2018, A&A, 614, A55
  * Andrievsky et al. (2008) Andrievsky S. M., Spite M., Korotin S. A., Spite F., Bonifacio P., Cayrel R., Hill V., François P., 2008, A&A, 481, 481
  * Asplund et al. (2009) Asplund M., Grevesse N., Sauval A. J., Scott P., 2009, ARA&A, 47, 481
  * Baraffe et al. (2017) Baraffe I., Pratt J., Goffrey T., Constantino T., Folini D., Popov M. V., Walder R., Viallet M., 2017, ApJ, 845, L6
  * Baumann et al. (2010) Baumann P., Ramírez I., Meléndez J., Asplund M., Lind K., 2010, A&A, 519, A87
  * Beck et al. (2017) Beck P. G. et al., 2017, A&A, 602, A63
  * Boisse et al. (2012) Boisse I. et al., 2012, A&A, 545, A55
  * Bond, O’Brien & Lauretta (2010) Bond J. C., O’Brien D. P., Lauretta D. S., 2010, ApJ, 715, 1050
  * Borgniet et al. (2019) Borgniet S. et al., 2019, A&A, 621, A87
  * Bouchy et al. (2009) Bouchy F. et al., 2009, A&A, 505, 853
  * Bouvier et al. (2016) Bouvier J. et al., 2016, A&A, 590, A78
  * Brewer et al. (2016) Brewer J. M., Fischer D. A., Valenti J. A., Piskunov N., 2016, ApJS, 225, 32
  * Caffau et al. (2010) Caffau E., Ludwig H. G., Bonifacio P., Faraggiana R., Steffen M., Freytag B., Kamp I., Ayres T. R., 2010, A&A, 514, A92
  * Carlos, Nissen & Meléndez (2016) Carlos M., Nissen P. E., Meléndez J., 2016, A&A, 587, A100
  * Castelli & Kurucz (2004) Castelli F., Kurucz R. L., 2004, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints
  * Courcol et al. (2015) Courcol B. et al., 2015, A&A, 581, A38
  * da Silva, Milone & Reddy (2011) da Silva R., Milone A. C., Reddy B. E., 2011, A&A, 526, A71
  * da Silva, Milone & Rocha-Pinto (2015) da Silva R., Milone A. d. C., Rocha-Pinto H. J., 2015, A&A, 580, A24
  * Delgado Mena et al. (2015) Delgado Mena E. et al., 2015, A&A, 576, A69
  * Delgado Mena et al. (2010) Delgado Mena E., Israelian G., González Hernández J. I., Bond J. C., Santos N. C., Udry S., Mayor M., 2010, ApJ, 725, 2349
  * Delgado Mena et al. (2014) Delgado Mena E. et al., 2014, A&A, 562, A92
  * Díaz et al. (2016) Díaz R. F. et al., 2016, A&A, 591, A146
  * Ecuvillon et al. (2006) Ecuvillon A., Israelian G., Santos N. C., Mayor M., Gilli G., 2006, A&A, 449, 809
  * Figueira et al. (2014) Figueira P., Faria J. P., Delgado-Mena E., Adibekyan V. Z., Sousa S. G., Santos N. C., Israelian G., 2014, A&A, 570, A21
  * Fischer & Valenti (2005) Fischer D. A., Valenti J., 2005, ApJ, 622, 1102
  * Gonzalez (1997) Gonzalez G., 1997, MNRAS, 285, 403
  * Gonzalez (1998) Gonzalez G., 1998, A&A, 334, 221
  * Gonzalez (2008) Gonzalez G., 2008, MNRAS, 386, 928
  * Gonzalez, Carlson & Tobin (2010) Gonzalez G., Carlson M. K., Tobin R. W., 2010, MNRAS, 403, 1368
  * Gonzalez & Laws (2000) Gonzalez G., Laws C., 2000, AJ, 119, 390
  * González Hernández et al. (2013) González Hernández J. I., Delgado-Mena E., Sousa S. G., Israelian G., Santos N. C., Adibekyan V. Z., Udry S., 2013, A&A, 552, A6
  * Grevesse, Asplund & Sauval (2007) Grevesse N., Asplund M., Sauval A. J., 2007, Space Sci. Rev., 130, 105
  * Guillot (2005) Guillot T., 2005, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 33, 493
  * Hébrard et al. (2016) Hébrard G. et al., 2016, A&A, 588, A145
  * Israelian et al. (2009) Israelian G. et al., 2009, Nature, 462, 189
  * Israelian et al. (2001) Israelian G., Santos N. C., Mayor M., Rebolo R., 2001, Nature, 411, 163
  * Israelian et al. (2004) Israelian G., Santos N. C., Mayor M., Rebolo R., 2004, A&A, 414, 601
  * Ivans et al. (2006) Ivans I. I., Simmerer J., Sneden C., Lawler J. E., Cowan J. J., Gallino R., Bisterzo S., 2006, ApJ, 645, 613
  * Jofré et al. (2015) Jofré E., Petrucci R., Saffe C., Saker L., Artur de la Villarmois E., Chavero C., Gómez M., Mauas P. J. D., 2015, A&A, 574, A50
  * Johansson et al. (2003) Johansson S., Litzén U., Lundberg H., Zhang Z., 2003, ApJ, 584, L107
  * Käppeler et al. (2011) Käppeler F., Gallino R., Bisterzo S., Aoki W., 2011, Reviews of Modern Physics, 83, 157
  * Katsova, Livshits & Mishenina (2013) Katsova M. M., Livshits M. A., Mishenina T. V., 2013, Astronomy Reports, 57, 702
  * Korotin et al. (2011) Korotin S., Mishenina T., Gorbaneva T., Soubiran C., 2011, MNRAS, 415, 2093
  * Korotin et al. (2015) Korotin S. A., Andrievsky S. M., Hansen C. J., Caffau E., Bonifacio P., Spite M., Spite F., François P., 2015, A&A, 581, A70
  * Korotin et al. (2014) Korotin S. A., Andrievsky S. M., Luck R. E., Lépine J. R. D., Maciel W. J., Kovtyukh V. V., 2014, MNRAS, 444, 3301
  * Kovtyukh et al. (2003) Kovtyukh V. V., Soubiran C., Belik S. I., Gorlova N. I., 2003, A&A, 411, 559
  * Kuchner & Seager (2005) Kuchner M. J., Seager S., 2005, arXiv e-prints, astro
  * Kupka et al. (1999) Kupka F., Piskunov N., Ryabchikova T. A., Stempels H. C., Weiss W. W., 1999, A&AS, 138, 119
  * Lind, Asplund & Barklem (2009) Lind K., Asplund M., Barklem P. S., 2009, A&A, 503, 541
  * Lodders (2003) Lodders K., 2003, ApJ, 591, 1220
  * Maeder & Meynet (2012) Maeder A., Meynet G., 2012, Reviews of Modern Physics, 84, 25
  * Mashonkina & Gehren (2000) Mashonkina L., Gehren T., 2000, A&A, 364, 249
  * Meléndez et al. (2009) Meléndez J., Asplund M., Gustafsson B., Yong D., 2009, ApJ, 704, L66
  * Mishenina et al. (2015) Mishenina T., Gorbaneva T., Pignatari M., Thielemann F. K., Korotin S. A., 2015, MNRAS, 454, 1585
  * Mishenina et al. (2016) Mishenina T., Kovtyukh V., Soubiran C., Adibekyan V. Z., 2016, MNRAS, 462, 1563
  * Mishenina et al. (2017) Mishenina T. et al., 2017, MNRAS, 469, 4378
  * Mishenina et al. (2000) Mishenina T. V., Korotin S. A., Klochkova V. G., Panchuk V. E., 2000, A&A, 353, 978
  * Mishenina et al. (2012) Mishenina T. V., Soubiran C., Kovtyukh V. V., Katsova M. M., Livshits M. A., 2012, A&A, 547, A106
  * Mishenina et al. (2004) Mishenina T. V., Soubiran C., Kovtyukh V. V., Korotin S. A., 2004, A&A, 418, 551
  * Mishenina & Tsymbal (1997) Mishenina T. V., Tsymbal V. V., 1997, Astronomy Letters, 23, 609
  * Montalbán & Rebolo (2002) Montalbán J., Rebolo R., 2002, A&A, 386, 1039
  * Mortier et al. (2012) Mortier A., Santos N. C., Sozzetti A., Mayor M., Latham D., Bonfils X., Udry S., 2012, A&A, 543, A45
  * Moultaka et al. (2004) Moultaka J., Ilovaisky S., Prugniel P., Soubiran C., 2004, in SF2A-2004: Semaine de l’Astrophysique Francaise, Combes F., Barret D., Contini T., Meynadier F., Pagani L., eds., p. 547
  * Moutou et al. (2014) Moutou C. et al., 2014, A&A, 563, A22
  * Nissen (2013) Nissen P. E., 2013, A&A, 552, A73
  * Nissen (2015) Nissen P. E., 2015, A&A, 579, A52
  * Nissen et al. (2014) Nissen P. E., Chen Y. Q., Carigi L., Schuster W. J., Zhao G., 2014, A&A, 568, A25
  * Nissen et al. (2020) Nissen P. E., Christensen-Dalsgaard J., Mosumgaard J. R., Silva Aguirre V., Spitoni E., Verma. K., 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2006.06013
  * Nomoto, Thielemann & Yokoi (1984) Nomoto K., Thielemann F. K., Yokoi K., 1984, ApJ, 286, 644
  * Pavlenko et al. (2019) Pavlenko Y. V., Kaminsky B. M., Jenkins J. S., Ivanyuk O. M., Jones H. R. A., Lyubchik Y. P., 2019, A&A, 621, A112
  * Perruchot et al. (2011) Perruchot S. et al., 2011, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 8151, Techniques and Instrumentation for Detection of Exoplanets V, Shaklan S., ed., p. 815115
  * Petigura & Marcy (2011) Petigura E. A., Marcy G. W., 2011, ApJ, 735, 41
  * Prantzos et al. (2018) Prantzos N., Abia C., Limongi M., Chieffi A., Cristallo S., 2018, MNRAS, 476, 3432
  * Prochaska & McWilliam (2000) Prochaska J. X., McWilliam A., 2000, ApJ, 537, L57
  * Queloz et al. (1998) Queloz D., Allain S., Mermilliod J. C., Bouvier J., Mayor M., 1998, A&A, 335, 183
  * Ramírez et al. (2012) Ramírez I., Fish J. R., Lambert D. L., Allende Prieto C., 2012, ApJ, 756, 46
  * Rey et al. (2017) Rey J. et al., 2017, A&A, 601, A9
  * Santos, Israelian & Mayor (2001) Santos N. C., Israelian G., Mayor M., 2001, A&A, 373, 1019
  * Santos et al. (2016) Santos N. C. et al., 2016, A&A, 592, A13
  * Santos et al. (2013) Santos N. C. et al., 2013, A&A, 556, A150
  * Smith, Cunha & Lazzaro (2001) Smith V. V., Cunha K., Lazzaro D., 2001, AJ, 121, 3207
  * Sousa et al. (2008) Sousa S. G. et al., 2008, A&A, 487, 373
  * Sousa et al. (2015) Sousa S. G. et al., 2015, A&A, 576, A94
  * Spina, Meléndez & Ramírez (2016) Spina L., Meléndez J., Ramírez I., 2016, A&A, 585, A152
  * Stonkutė et al. (2020) Stonkutė E. et al., 2020, AJ, 159, 90
  * Suárez-Andrés et al. (2016) Suárez-Andrés L., Israelian G., González Hernández J. I., Adibekyan V. Z., Delgado Mena E., Santos N. C., Sousa S. G., 2016, A&A, 591, A69
  * Suárez-Andrés et al. (2017) Suárez-Andrés L., Israelian G., González Hernández J. I., Adibekyan V. Z., Delgado Mena E., Santos N. C., Sousa S. G., 2017, A&A, 599, A96
  * Suárez-Andrés et al. (2018) Suárez-Andrés L., Israelian G., González Hernández J. I., Adibekyan V. Z., Delgado Mena E., Santos N. C., Sousa S. G., 2018, A&A, 614, A84
  * Takeda & Kawanomoto (2005) Takeda Y., Kawanomoto S., 2005, PASJ, 57, 45
  * Takeda et al. (2007) Takeda Y., Kawanomoto S., Honda S., Ando H., Sakurai T., 2007, A&A, 468, 663
  * Teske et al. (2014) Teske J. K., Cunha K., Smith V. V., Schuler S. C., Griffith C. A., 2014, ApJ, 788, 39
  * Thiabaud et al. (2015a) Thiabaud A., Marboeuf U., Alibert Y., Leya I., Mezger K., 2015a, A&A, 580, A30
  * Thiabaud et al. (2015b) Thiabaud A., Marboeuf U., Alibert Y., Leya I., Mezger K., 2015b, A&A, 574, A138
  * Thorburn et al. (1993) Thorburn J. A., Hobbs L. M., Deliyannis C. P., Pinsonneault M. H., 1993, ApJ, 415, 150
  * Timmes, Woosley & Weaver (1995) Timmes F. X., Woosley S. E., Weaver T. A., 1995, ApJS, 98, 617
  * Tsymbal (1996) Tsymbal V., 1996, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 108, M.A.S.S., Model Atmospheres and Spectrum Synthesis, Adelman S. J., Kupka F., Weiss W. W., eds., p. 198
  * Tucci Maia et al. (2019) Tucci Maia M., Meléndez J., Lorenzo-Oliveira D., Spina L., Jofré P., 2019, A&A, 628, A126
  * Udry & Santos (2007) Udry S., Santos N. C., 2007, ARA&A, 45, 397
  * Woosley & Weaver (1995) Woosley S. E., Weaver T. A., 1995, ApJS, 101, 181

##  Appendix A On-line material

Table 7: The list of used lines Wave | Ion | Elow | $\log\,gf$ | Wave | Ion | Elow | $\log\,gf$ | Wave | Ion | Elow | $\log\,gf$
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---
5688.205 | 11.00 | 2.104 | –0.451 | 5653.867 | 26.00 | 4.387 | –1.639 | 6739.522 | 26.00 | 1.557 | –4.793
6154.226 | 11.00 | 2.102 | –1.546 | 5661.346 | 26.00 | 4.284 | –1.735 | 6745.101 | 26.00 | 4.580 | –2.159
6160.747 | 11.00 | 2.104 | –1.245 | 5672.264 | 26.00 | 4.584 | –2.799 | 6745.957 | 26.00 | 4.076 | –2.769
4571.096 | 12.00 | 0.000 | –5.622 | 5678.379 | 26.00 | 3.884 | –3.019 | 6746.955 | 26.00 | 2.609 | –4.349
4730.029 | 12.00 | 4.346 | –2.346 | 5679.023 | 26.00 | 4.652 | –0.919 | 6750.153 | 26.00 | 2.424 | –2.620
5711.088 | 12.00 | 4.346 | –1.723 | 5680.240 | 26.00 | 4.186 | –2.579 | 6752.707 | 26.00 | 4.638 | –1.203
6318.717 | 12.00 | 5.108 | –2.102 | 5686.530 | 26.00 | 4.549 | –0.445 | 6753.464 | 26.00 | 4.559 | –2.289
6319.237 | 12.00 | 5.108 | –2.323 | 5691.497 | 26.00 | 4.301 | –1.519 | 6761.070 | 26.00 | 4.584 | –2.529
6319.493 | 12.00 | 5.108 | –2.802 | 5698.020 | 26.00 | 3.640 | –2.679 | 6764.107 | 26.00 | 4.593 | –2.787
6696.023 | 13.00 | 3.143 | –1.346 | 5701.545 | 26.00 | 2.559 | –2.215 | 6769.659 | 26.00 | 4.580 | –2.659
6698.673 | 13.00 | 3.143 | –1.646 | 5705.465 | 26.00 | 4.301 | –1.354 | 6783.704 | 26.00 | 2.588 | –3.979
5645.613 | 14.00 | 4.930 | –2.139 | 5707.050 | 26.00 | 3.642 | –2.399 | 6786.860 | 26.00 | 4.191 | –2.069
5665.554 | 14.00 | 4.920 | –2.039 | 5717.833 | 26.00 | 4.284 | –1.129 | 6793.259 | 26.00 | 4.076 | –2.325
5690.425 | 14.00 | 4.930 | –1.869 | 5720.898 | 26.00 | 4.549 | –1.949 | 6794.619 | 26.00 | 4.956 | –2.109
5772.146 | 14.00 | 5.082 | –1.749 | 5724.455 | 26.00 | 4.284 | –2.639 | 6796.125 | 26.00 | 4.143 | –2.529
5793.073 | 14.00 | 4.930 | –2.059 | 5731.762 | 26.00 | 4.256 | –1.299 | 6801.865 | 26.00 | 1.608 | –4.734
5948.541 | 14.00 | 5.082 | –1.229 | 5732.296 | 26.00 | 4.991 | –1.559 | 6806.845 | 26.00 | 2.728 | –3.209
6125.021 | 14.00 | 5.614 | –1.464 | 5732.863 | 26.00 | 4.103 | –3.039 | 6810.263 | 26.00 | 4.607 | –0.985
6142.483 | 14.00 | 5.619 | –1.295 | 5738.228 | 26.00 | 4.220 | –2.339 | 6820.372 | 26.00 | 4.638 | –1.319
6145.016 | 14.00 | 5.616 | –1.310 | 5741.848 | 26.00 | 4.256 | –1.853 | 6824.823 | 26.00 | 4.988 | –2.129
6243.815 | 14.00 | 5.616 | –1.243 | 5752.032 | 26.00 | 4.549 | –1.176 | 6828.591 | 26.00 | 4.638 | –0.919
6244.465 | 14.00 | 5.616 | –1.090 | 5753.123 | 26.00 | 4.260 | –0.687 | 6833.226 | 26.00 | 4.638 | –2.079
6741.628 | 14.00 | 5.984 | –1.749 | 5759.262 | 26.00 | 4.652 | –2.069 | 6837.006 | 26.00 | 4.593 | –1.686
6748.790 | 16.00 | 7.868 | –0.529 | 5760.345 | 26.00 | 3.642 | –2.489 | 6839.831 | 26.00 | 2.559 | –3.449
6757.150 | 16.00 | 7.870 | –0.239 | 5762.414 | 26.00 | 3.642 | –2.279 | 6841.339 | 26.00 | 4.607 | –0.749
4578.551 | 20.00 | 2.521 | –0.696 | 5762.992 | 26.00 | 4.209 | –0.449 | 6842.686 | 26.00 | 4.638 | –1.319
4685.268 | 20.00 | 2.933 | –0.878 | 5775.081 | 26.00 | 4.220 | –1.297 | 6843.656 | 26.00 | 4.549 | –0.929
5349.465 | 20.00 | 2.709 | –0.309 | 5778.453 | 26.00 | 2.588 | –3.429 | 6855.162 | 26.00 | 4.559 | –0.741
5581.965 | 20.00 | 2.523 | –0.554 | 5793.915 | 26.00 | 4.220 | –1.699 | 6855.713 | 26.00 | 4.607 | –1.819
5590.114 | 20.00 | 2.521 | –0.570 | 5804.035 | 26.00 | 3.882 | –2.289 | 6857.250 | 26.00 | 4.076 | –2.149
5601.277 | 20.00 | 2.526 | –0.522 | 5806.725 | 26.00 | 4.608 | –1.049 | 6858.150 | 26.00 | 4.608 | –0.929
5867.562 | 20.00 | 2.933 | –1.569 | 5809.218 | 26.00 | 3.884 | –1.839 | 6862.480 | 26.00 | 4.559 | –1.569
6122.217 | 20.00 | 1.886 | –0.315 | 5811.915 | 26.00 | 4.143 | –2.429 | 6864.311 | 26.00 | 4.559 | –2.319
6166.439 | 20.00 | 2.521 | –1.141 | 5814.808 | 26.00 | 4.283 | –1.969 | 4893.820 | 26.01 | 2.828 | –4.266
6439.075 | 20.00 | 2.526 | 0.390 | 5816.374 | 26.00 | 4.549 | –0.600 | 4993.358 | 26.01 | 2.807 | –3.639
6471.662 | 20.00 | 2.526 | –0.685 | 5826.638 | 26.00 | 4.283 | –2.939 | 5100.664 | 26.01 | 2.807 | –4.169
6717.681 | 20.00 | 2.709 | –0.523 | 5827.877 | 26.00 | 3.283 | –3.409 | 5132.669 | 26.01 | 2.807 | –3.979
5201.080 | 22.00 | 2.092 | –0.659 | 5835.101 | 26.00 | 4.256 | –2.369 | 5197.577 | 26.01 | 3.230 | –2.099
5210.385 | 22.00 | 0.048 | –0.849 | 5837.701 | 26.00 | 4.294 | –2.339 | 5234.625 | 26.01 | 3.221 | –2.229
5219.701 | 22.00 | 0.021 | –2.259 | 5838.372 | 26.00 | 3.943 | –2.339 | 5256.937 | 26.01 | 2.891 | –4.181
5223.620 | 22.00 | 2.092 | –0.489 | 5845.287 | 26.00 | 5.033 | –1.819 | 5325.553 | 26.01 | 3.221 | –3.119
5224.300 | 22.00 | 2.134 | 0.130 | 5849.684 | 26.00 | 3.695 | –2.989 | 5362.869 | 26.01 | 3.199 | –2.615
5282.376 | 22.00 | 1.053 | –1.299 | 5852.219 | 26.00 | 4.549 | –1.329 | 5414.073 | 26.01 | 3.221 | –3.539
5295.775 | 22.00 | 1.067 | –1.632 | 5855.077 | 26.00 | 4.608 | –1.477 | 5425.257 | 26.01 | 3.199 | –3.159
5300.011 | 22.00 | 1.053 | –1.469 | 5856.088 | 26.00 | 4.294 | –1.327 | 5534.847 | 26.01 | 3.245 | –2.729
5338.305 | 22.00 | 0.826 | –1.869 | 5858.778 | 26.00 | 4.220 | –2.259 | 5627.497 | 26.01 | 3.387 | –4.129
5426.250 | 22.00 | 0.021 | –3.005 | 5859.586 | 26.00 | 4.549 | –0.418 | 5725.963 | 26.01 | 3.425 | –4.819
5490.148 | 22.00 | 1.460 | –0.932 | 5861.110 | 26.00 | 4.283 | –2.449 | 5732.724 | 26.01 | 3.387 | –4.635
5648.565 | 22.00 | 2.495 | –0.259 | 5862.356 | 26.00 | 4.549 | –0.126 | 5823.155 | 26.01 | 5.569 | –2.986
5689.460 | 22.00 | 2.297 | –0.359 | 5864.244 | 26.00 | 4.301 | –2.519 | 5932.055 | 26.01 | 3.199 | –5.049
5866.451 | 22.00 | 1.067 | –0.839 | 5873.213 | 26.00 | 4.256 | –2.139 | 5991.376 | 26.01 | 3.153 | –3.539
5899.294 | 22.00 | 1.053 | –1.153 | 5877.788 | 26.00 | 4.178 | –2.229 | 6084.111 | 26.01 | 3.199 | –3.779
5918.535 | 22.00 | 1.067 | –1.459 | 5879.487 | 26.00 | 4.607 | –2.139 | 6113.322 | 26.01 | 3.221 | –4.109
5922.109 | 22.00 | 1.046 | –1.465 | 5880.027 | 26.00 | 4.559 | –1.939 | 6129.703 | 26.01 | 3.199 | –4.739
5937.809 | 22.00 | 1.067 | –1.889 | 5881.280 | 26.00 | 4.608 | –1.839 | 6149.258 | 26.01 | 3.889 | –2.719
5953.160 | 22.00 | 1.887 | –0.328 | 5883.817 | 26.00 | 3.960 | –1.359 | 6179.384 | 26.01 | 5.569 | –2.796
5965.828 | 22.00 | 1.879 | –0.408 | 5902.474 | 26.00 | 4.593 | –1.809 | 6233.534 | 26.01 | 5.484 | –2.831
5978.541 | 22.00 | 1.873 | –0.495 | 5905.672 | 26.00 | 4.652 | –0.729 | 6238.392 | 26.01 | 3.889 | –2.753
6091.171 | 22.00 | 2.267 | –0.422 | 5909.974 | 26.00 | 3.211 | –2.586 | 6239.953 | 26.01 | 3.889 | –3.572
6121.001 | 22.00 | 1.879 | –0.966 | 5916.247 | 26.00 | 2.453 | –2.993 | 6247.557 | 26.01 | 3.892 | –2.309
6126.216 | 22.00 | 1.067 | –1.424 | 5927.789 | 26.00 | 4.652 | –1.089 | 6248.898 | 26.01 | 5.511 | –2.783
6258.102 | 22.00 | 1.443 | –0.354 | 5930.180 | 26.00 | 4.652 | –0.229 | 6369.462 | 26.01 | 2.891 | –4.159
6258.706 | 22.00 | 1.460 | –0.239 | 5934.655 | 26.00 | 3.929 | –1.169 | 6383.722 | 26.01 | 5.553 | –2.069
6261.097 | 22.00 | 1.430 | –0.478 | 5956.694 | 26.00 | 0.859 | –4.604 | 6407.251 | 26.01 | 3.889 | –3.853
5211.530 | 22.01 | 2.590 | –1.159 | 5975.350 | 26.00 | 4.835 | –0.691 | 6416.919 | 26.01 | 3.892 | –2.649
5268.615 | 22.01 | 2.598 | –1.669 | 5976.777 | 26.00 | 3.943 | –1.242 | 6432.680 | 26.01 | 2.891 | –3.519
5396.226 | 22.01 | 1.584 | –3.019 | 5983.680 | 26.00 | 4.549 | –1.467 | 6442.955 | 26.01 | 5.549 | –2.670
5418.751 | 22.01 | 1.582 | –2.109 | 5984.815 | 26.00 | 4.733 | –0.195 | 6446.410 | 26.01 | 6.223 | –1.959
6606.950 | 22.01 | 2.061 | –2.789 | 5987.065 | 26.00 | 4.796 | –0.428 | 6516.080 | 26.01 | 2.891 | –3.319
5214.131 | 24.00 | 3.369 | –0.739 | 6003.012 | 26.00 | 3.882 | –1.119 | 5388.344 | 28.00 | 1.935 | –3.559
5247.565 | 24.00 | 0.961 | –1.589 | 6007.960 | 26.00 | 4.652 | –0.596 | 5392.331 | 28.00 | 4.154 | –1.319
5272.000 | 24.00 | 3.449 | –0.419 | 6008.556 | 26.00 | 3.884 | –0.985 | 5424.645 | 28.00 | 1.951 | –2.769
5287.178 | 24.00 | 3.438 | –0.869 | 6018.299 | 26.00 | 4.652 | –2.081 | 5435.858 | 28.00 | 1.986 | –2.589
5297.377 | 24.00 | 2.900 | 0.209 | 6024.058 | 26.00 | 4.549 | –0.119 | 5452.861 | 28.00 | 3.796 | –1.659
5304.180 | 24.00 | 3.464 | –0.669 | 6027.051 | 26.00 | 4.076 | –1.088 | 5453.230 | 28.00 | 4.088 | –1.489
5312.856 | 24.00 | 3.449 | –0.549 | 6054.074 | 26.00 | 4.371 | –2.309 | 5462.493 | 28.00 | 3.847 | –0.929
5329.138 | 24.00 | 2.914 | –0.007 | 6056.005 | 26.00 | 4.733 | –0.459 | 5494.880 | 28.00 | 4.105 | –1.159
5344.757 | 24.00 | 3.449 | –0.989 | 6062.848 | 26.00 | 2.176 | –4.139 | 5578.718 | 28.00 | 1.676 | –2.639
5345.796 | 24.00 | 1.004 | –0.949 | 6065.482 | 26.00 | 2.609 | –1.529 | 5589.358 | 28.00 | 3.898 | –1.139
5348.315 | 24.00 | 1.004 | –1.209 | 6078.491 | 26.00 | 4.796 | –0.320 | 5593.735 | 28.00 | 3.898 | –0.839
5628.643 | 24.00 | 3.422 | –0.739 | 6079.009 | 26.00 | 4.652 | –1.119 | 5625.317 | 28.00 | 4.089 | –0.699
5642.358 | 24.00 | 3.857 | –0.898 | 6082.711 | 26.00 | 2.223 | –3.572 | 5637.119 | 28.00 | 4.089 | –0.819
5664.579 | 24.00 | 3.826 | –0.632 | 6085.259 | 26.00 | 2.759 | –3.094 | 5638.820 | 28.00 | 3.898 | –1.719
5712.771 | 24.00 | 3.011 | –1.029 | 6093.644 | 26.00 | 4.608 | –1.499 | 5641.881 | 28.00 | 4.105 | –1.069
5783.063 | 24.00 | 3.323 | –0.374 | 6094.374 | 26.00 | 4.652 | –1.939 | 5643.078 | 28.00 | 4.165 | –1.239
5783.850 | 24.00 | 3.322 | –0.360 | 6096.665 | 26.00 | 3.984 | –1.929 | 5663.985 | 28.00 | 4.538 | –0.429
5784.969 | 24.00 | 3.321 | –0.346 | 6098.245 | 26.00 | 4.559 | –1.879 | 5682.199 | 28.00 | 4.105 | –0.469
5787.918 | 24.00 | 3.322 | –0.049 | 6102.171 | 26.00 | 4.835 | –0.515 | 5694.983 | 28.00 | 4.089 | –0.609
6330.091 | 24.00 | 0.941 | –2.919 | 6105.131 | 26.00 | 4.549 | –2.049 | 5748.351 | 28.00 | 1.676 | –3.259
6661.075 | 24.00 | 4.193 | –0.112 | 6120.249 | 26.00 | 0.915 | –5.949 | 5754.656 | 28.00 | 1.935 | –2.329
6882.512 | 24.00 | 3.438 | –0.310 | 6127.907 | 26.00 | 4.143 | –1.398 | 5760.830 | 28.00 | 4.105 | –0.799
6883.052 | 24.00 | 3.438 | –0.355 | 6136.615 | 26.00 | 2.453 | –1.399 | 5805.217 | 28.00 | 4.167 | –0.639
4892.859 | 26.00 | 4.218 | –1.289 | 6137.692 | 26.00 | 2.588 | –1.402 | 5831.595 | 28.00 | 4.167 | –0.944
4917.230 | 26.00 | 4.191 | –1.179 | 6151.618 | 26.00 | 2.176 | –3.298 | 5846.993 | 28.00 | 1.676 | –3.209
4924.770 | 26.00 | 2.279 | –2.240 | 6157.728 | 26.00 | 4.076 | –1.259 | 5996.730 | 28.00 | 4.236 | –1.059
4950.106 | 26.00 | 3.417 | –1.669 | 6159.378 | 26.00 | 4.608 | –1.969 | 6007.310 | 28.00 | 1.676 | –3.329
4973.102 | 26.00 | 3.960 | –0.949 | 6165.360 | 26.00 | 4.143 | –1.473 | 6039.298 | 28.00 | 4.236 | –2.029
4994.130 | 26.00 | 0.915 | –3.079 | 6170.507 | 26.00 | 4.796 | –0.439 | 6086.281 | 28.00 | 4.266 | –0.529
5029.618 | 26.00 | 3.415 | –2.049 | 6173.336 | 26.00 | 2.223 | –2.879 | 6108.116 | 28.00 | 1.676 | –2.449
5044.211 | 26.00 | 2.851 | –2.037 | 6180.204 | 26.00 | 2.728 | –2.585 | 6111.070 | 28.00 | 4.088 | –0.869
5049.820 | 26.00 | 2.279 | –1.354 | 6187.990 | 26.00 | 3.943 | –1.719 | 6128.973 | 28.00 | 1.676 | –3.329
5056.841 | 26.00 | 4.260 | –1.959 | 6200.313 | 26.00 | 2.609 | –2.436 | 6130.135 | 28.00 | 4.266 | –0.959
5067.150 | 26.00 | 4.220 | –0.969 | 6209.714 | 26.00 | 3.960 | –3.248 | 6176.807 | 28.00 | 4.088 | –0.259
5072.672 | 26.00 | 4.220 | –0.836 | 6213.430 | 26.00 | 2.223 | –2.481 | 6186.711 | 28.00 | 4.105 | –0.959
5083.339 | 26.00 | 0.958 | –2.957 | 6215.144 | 26.00 | 4.186 | –1.319 | 6204.600 | 28.00 | 4.088 | –1.099
5090.774 | 26.00 | 4.256 | –0.399 | 6219.281 | 26.00 | 2.198 | –2.432 | 6223.981 | 28.00 | 4.105 | –0.909
5126.193 | 26.00 | 4.256 | –1.079 | 6220.784 | 26.00 | 3.882 | –2.459 | 6230.089 | 28.00 | 4.105 | –1.259
5133.689 | 26.00 | 4.178 | 0.140 | 6226.736 | 26.00 | 3.884 | –2.219 | 6259.595 | 28.00 | 4.089 | –1.236
5171.596 | 26.00 | 1.485 | –1.792 | 6229.228 | 26.00 | 2.845 | –2.804 | 6327.598 | 28.00 | 1.676 | –3.149
5198.711 | 26.00 | 2.223 | –2.134 | 6230.723 | 26.00 | 2.559 | –1.280 | 6360.811 | 28.00 | 4.167 | –1.026
5215.181 | 26.00 | 3.266 | –0.870 | 6232.641 | 26.00 | 3.654 | –1.222 | 6366.480 | 28.00 | 4.167 | –0.873
5216.274 | 26.00 | 1.608 | –2.149 | 6240.646 | 26.00 | 2.223 | –3.232 | 6378.247 | 28.00 | 4.154 | –0.829
5217.389 | 26.00 | 3.211 | –1.069 | 6246.319 | 26.00 | 3.603 | –0.732 | 6424.852 | 28.00 | 4.167 | –1.354
5242.491 | 26.00 | 3.634 | –0.966 | 6252.555 | 26.00 | 2.404 | –1.686 | 6532.873 | 28.00 | 1.935 | –3.389
5243.777 | 26.00 | 4.256 | –1.149 | 6254.259 | 26.00 | 2.279 | –2.442 | 6586.310 | 28.00 | 1.951 | –2.809
5257.655 | 26.00 | 3.573 | –2.752 | 6265.134 | 26.00 | 2.176 | –2.549 | 6598.598 | 28.00 | 4.236 | –0.979
5281.790 | 26.00 | 3.039 | –0.833 | 6270.225 | 26.00 | 2.858 | –2.463 | 6767.772 | 28.00 | 1.826 | –2.169
5288.525 | 26.00 | 3.695 | –1.507 | 6271.279 | 26.00 | 3.332 | –2.702 | 6772.315 | 28.00 | 3.658 | –0.979
5307.361 | 26.00 | 1.608 | –2.986 | 6290.965 | 26.00 | 4.733 | –0.773 | 6842.037 | 28.00 | 3.658 | –1.479
5324.179 | 26.00 | 3.211 | –0.102 | 6297.793 | 26.00 | 2.223 | –2.739 | 6850.480 | 28.00 | 3.679 | –2.099
5326.143 | 26.00 | 3.573 | –2.070 | 6322.686 | 26.00 | 2.588 | –2.425 | 4680.134 | 30.00 | 4.006 | –0.814
5339.929 | 26.00 | 3.266 | –0.646 | 6330.850 | 26.00 | 4.733 | –1.739 | 4722.153 | 30.00 | 4.030 | –0.337
5364.871 | 26.00 | 4.446 | 0.228 | 6335.331 | 26.00 | 2.198 | –2.176 | 4810.528 | 30.00 | 4.078 | –0.136
5365.399 | 26.00 | 3.573 | –1.019 | 6336.824 | 26.00 | 3.686 | –0.855 | 6362.338 | 30.00 | 5.796 | 0.150
5367.467 | 26.00 | 4.415 | 0.443 | 6344.149 | 26.00 | 2.433 | –2.922 | 5119.112 | 39.01 | 0.992 | –1.359
5373.709 | 26.00 | 4.473 | –0.859 | 6355.029 | 26.00 | 2.845 | –2.349 | 5289.815 | 39.01 | 1.033 | –1.849
5379.574 | 26.00 | 3.695 | –1.513 | 6358.698 | 26.00 | 0.859 | –4.467 | 5402.774 | 39.01 | 1.839 | –0.629
5383.369 | 26.00 | 4.313 | 0.645 | 6364.366 | 26.00 | 4.796 | –1.429 | 5509.895 | 39.01 | 0.992 | –0.947
5389.479 | 26.00 | 4.415 | –0.409 | 6380.743 | 26.00 | 4.186 | –1.375 | 5728.887 | 39.01 | 1.839 | –1.658
5391.459 | 26.00 | 4.154 | –0.781 | 6392.539 | 26.00 | 2.279 | –4.029 | 6795.414 | 39.01 | 1.738 | –1.029
5393.168 | 26.00 | 3.241 | –0.714 | 6393.601 | 26.00 | 2.433 | –1.431 | 5112.270 | 40.01 | 1.665 | –0.849
5398.279 | 26.00 | 4.446 | –0.669 | 6408.018 | 26.00 | 3.686 | –1.017 | 5350.089 | 40.01 | 1.827 | –1.239
5405.775 | 26.00 | 0.990 | –1.843 | 6411.649 | 26.00 | 3.654 | –0.594 | 5350.350 | 40.01 | 1.773 | –1.159
5410.910 | 26.00 | 4.473 | 0.398 | 6419.950 | 26.00 | 4.733 | –0.239 | 4486.909 | 58.01 | 0.295 | –0.179
5415.199 | 26.00 | 4.387 | 0.642 | 6421.351 | 26.00 | 2.279 | –2.026 | 4562.359 | 58.01 | 0.478 | 0.210
5417.033 | 26.00 | 4.415 | –1.679 | 6430.846 | 26.00 | 2.176 | –2.005 | 5044.023 | 58.01 | 1.212 | –0.139
5424.068 | 26.00 | 4.320 | 0.520 | 6436.407 | 26.00 | 4.186 | –2.459 | 5117.169 | 58.01 | 1.402 | –0.049
5434.524 | 26.00 | 1.011 | –2.121 | 6469.193 | 26.00 | 4.835 | –0.769 | 5252.661 | 58.01 | 1.155 | –0.639
5445.042 | 26.00 | 4.387 | –0.019 | 6475.624 | 26.00 | 2.559 | –2.941 | 5274.229 | 58.01 | 1.044 | 0.130
5452.088 | 26.00 | 3.640 | –2.859 | 6481.870 | 26.00 | 2.279 | –2.983 | 5330.556 | 58.01 | 0.869 | –0.399
5464.280 | 26.00 | 4.143 | –1.401 | 6494.981 | 26.00 | 2.404 | –1.272 | 5472.279 | 58.01 | 1.247 | –0.099
5466.396 | 26.00 | 4.371 | –0.629 | 6495.742 | 26.00 | 4.835 | –0.939 | 5518.489 | 58.01 | 1.155 | –0.649
5497.516 | 26.00 | 1.011 | –2.848 | 6498.939 | 26.00 | 0.958 | –4.698 | 6043.373 | 58.01 | 1.206 | –0.479
5501.465 | 26.00 | 0.958 | –3.046 | 6518.367 | 26.00 | 2.832 | –2.459 | 5110.763 | 59.01 | 1.148 | 0.320
5506.779 | 26.00 | 0.990 | –2.796 | 6533.929 | 26.00 | 4.559 | –1.459 | 5219.045 | 59.01 | 0.795 | –0.052
5522.447 | 26.00 | 4.209 | –1.549 | 6592.914 | 26.00 | 2.728 | –1.472 | 5259.728 | 59.01 | 0.633 | 0.114
5531.984 | 26.00 | 4.913 | –1.609 | 6593.871 | 26.00 | 2.433 | –2.421 | 5322.771 | 59.01 | 0.483 | –0.318
5543.150 | 26.00 | 3.695 | –1.569 | 6597.561 | 26.00 | 4.796 | –1.069 | 5352.404 | 59.01 | 0.483 | –0.652
5554.895 | 26.00 | 4.549 | –0.439 | 6608.026 | 26.00 | 2.279 | –4.029 | 6397.973 | 59.01 | 1.053 | –0.939
5560.212 | 26.00 | 4.435 | –1.189 | 6609.110 | 26.00 | 2.559 | –2.691 | 4959.120 | 60.01 | 0.064 | –0.799
5565.704 | 26.00 | 4.608 | –0.212 | 6627.545 | 26.00 | 4.549 | –1.679 | 5092.790 | 60.01 | 0.380 | –0.609
5572.842 | 26.00 | 3.397 | –0.274 | 6646.932 | 26.00 | 2.609 | –3.989 | 5130.590 | 60.01 | 1.304 | 0.450
5576.089 | 26.00 | 3.430 | –0.999 | 6653.853 | 26.00 | 4.154 | –2.519 | 5181.169 | 60.01 | 0.859 | –0.599
5584.765 | 26.00 | 3.573 | –2.319 | 6677.987 | 26.00 | 2.692 | –1.417 | 5319.810 | 60.01 | 0.550 | –0.139
5586.756 | 26.00 | 3.368 | –0.119 | 6699.142 | 26.00 | 4.593 | –2.100 | 5431.520 | 60.01 | 1.121 | –0.469
5633.947 | 26.00 | 4.991 | –0.269 | 6703.567 | 26.00 | 2.759 | –3.159 | 5740.860 | 60.01 | 1.160 | –0.529
5635.823 | 26.00 | 4.256 | –1.889 | 6704.481 | 26.00 | 4.218 | –2.659 | 5842.366 | 60.01 | 1.282 | –0.599
5636.696 | 26.00 | 3.640 | –2.609 | 6705.101 | 26.00 | 4.607 | –1.391 | 6740.078 | 60.01 | 0.064 | –2.099
5638.262 | 26.00 | 4.220 | –0.869 | 6713.745 | 26.00 | 4.796 | –1.599 | 4642.230 | 62.01 | 0.378 | –0.459
5641.434 | 26.00 | 4.256 | –1.179 | 6715.383 | 26.00 | 4.608 | –1.639 | 4676.900 | 62.01 | 0.040 | –0.869
5646.684 | 26.00 | 4.260 | –2.499 | 6716.237 | 26.00 | 4.580 | –1.919 | 4815.800 | 62.01 | 0.185 | –0.819
5649.987 | 26.00 | 5.100 | –0.919 | 6725.357 | 26.00 | 4.103 | –2.299 | 4952.370 | 62.01 | 0.333 | –1.249
5650.706 | 26.00 | 5.086 | –0.959 | 6726.666 | 26.00 | 4.607 | –1.132 | 4972.170 | 62.01 | 0.933 | –0.939
5651.469 | 26.00 | 4.473 | –1.999 | 6733.151 | 26.00 | 4.638 | –1.579 | 6731.810 | 62.01 | 1.166 | –0.739
5652.318 | 26.00 | 4.260 | –1.949 | 6737.987 | 26.00 | 4.559 | –1.749 |  |  |  |

Appendix

Table 8: Elemental abundances from individual ions, $\sigma$ is internal
errors

| HD 12484 | HD 13908 | HD 16175 | HD 17674
---|---|---|---|---
Ion | [M/H] | $\sigma$ | N | (M/H) | [M/H] | $\sigma$ | N | (M/H) | [M/H] | $\sigma$ | N | (M/H) | [M/H] | $\sigma$ | N | (M/H)
Li i | – | – | 1 | 2.85 | – | – | 1 | 1.38 | – | – | 1 | 3.00 | – | – | 1 | 1.80
C i | 0.05 | 0.10 | 3 | 8.48 | –0.08 | 0.08 | 3 | 8.35 | 0.29 | 0.10 | 3 | 8.72 | –0.11 | 0.06 | 3 | 8.32
O i | 0.09 | – | 1 | 8.78 | 0.01 | – | 1 | 8.70 | 0.40 | – | 1 | 9.09 | 0.01 |  | 1 | 8.70
Na i | 0.01 | 0.12 | 3 | 6.25 | 0.00 | 0.10 | 3 | 6.24 | 0.43 | 0.03 | 2 | 6.75 | –0.19 | 0.10 | 3 | 6.05
Mg i | 0.07 | 0.12 | 4 | 7.67 | –0.06 | 0.04 | 6 | 7.54 | 0.28 | 0.15 | 4 | 7.88 | –0.11 | 0.08 | 4 | 7.49
Al i | 0.03 | 0.06 | 2 | 6.48 | -0.20 | 0.07 | 2 | 6.25 | 0.18 | 0.13 | 2 | 6.63 | –0.30 | 0.06 | 2 | 6.15
Si i | 0.12 | 0.12 | 13 | 7.63 | 0.10 | 0.07 | 12 | 7.61 | 0.34 | 0.13 | 10 | 7.85 | –0.07 | 0.09 | 10 | 7.44
S i | – | – | – | – | –0.02 | 0.02 | 2 | 7.10 | 0.33 | 0.18 | 2 | 7.54 | –0.16 | – | 1 | 6.96
Ca i | 0.15 | 0.12 | 9 | 6.49 | 0.09 | 0.11 | 12 | 6.43 | 0.24 | 0.03 | 5 | 6.64 | –0.14 | 0.16 | 9 | 6.2
Sc ii | 0.13 | 0.13 | 5 | 3.28 | 0.15 | 0.13 | 7 | 3.30 | 0.43 | 0.09 | 5 | 3.68 | –0.03 | 0.10 | 6 | 3.12
Ti i | 0.07 | 0.13 | 21 | 5.02 | –0.06 | 0.09 | 24 | 4.89 | 0.39 | 0.06 | 16 | 5.34 | –0.13 | 0.10 | 20 | 4.82
Ti ii | 0.02 | 0.11 | 3 | 4.97 | 0.00 | 0.08 | 5 | 4.95 | 0.38 | 0.18 | 4 | 5.32 | –0.11 | 0.19 | 5 | 4.84
V i | 0.01 | 0.05 | 7 | 3.94 | –0.06 | 0.10 | 10 | 3.87 | 0.34 | 0.20 | 6 | 4.45 | –0.14 | 0.12 | 6 | 3.79
Cr i | –0.01 | 0.12 | 19 | 5.63 | –0.08 | 0.08 | 22 | 5.56 | 0.18 | 0.07 | 13 | 5.94 | –0.22 | 0.09 | 21 | 5.42
Mn i | –0.15 | 0.13 | 5 | 5.28 | –0.18 | 0.10 | 5 | 5.25 | 0.52 | 0.01 | 3 | 5.95 | –0.07 | 0.11 | 5 | 5.36
Fe i | 0.05 | 0.12 | 196 | 7.55 | 0.05 | 0.10 | 228 | 7.55 | 0.36 | 0.08 | 188 | 7.89 | –0.14 | 0.11 | 215 | 7.36
Fe ii | 0.05 | 0.12 | 20 | 7.55 | 0.06 | 0.08 | 29 | 7.56 | 0.36 | 0.06 | 21 | 7.89 | –0.15 | 0.10 | 25 | 7.35
Ni i | 0.04 | 0.11 | 40 | 6.26 | –0.03 | 0.10 | 50 | 6.19 | 0.33 | 0.06 | 39 | 6.65 | –0.15 | 0.09 | 43 | 6.07
Zn i | 0.04 | 0.06 | 3 | 4.60 | 0.08 | 0.02 | 4 | 4.64 | 0.37 | – | 1 | 4.88 | -0.17 | 0.05 | 4 | 4.39
Y ii | 0.01 | 0.09 | 4 | 2.25 | 0.01 | 0.10 | 4 | 2.22 | 0.45 | 0.33 | 5 | 2.69 | –0.17 | 0.14 | 5 | 2.07
Zr ii | 0.05 | – | 1 | 2.63 | 0.14 | 0.08 | 3 | 2.72 | – | – | – | – | –0.02 | 0.10 | 3 | 2.56
Ba ii | 0.26 | 0.06 | 3 | 2.44 | 0.26 | 0.09 | 3 | 2.44 | 0.56 | 0.03 | 3 | 2.74 | –0.04 | 0.07 | 3 | 2.14
Ce ii | 0.21 | 0.13 | 4 | 1.79 | 0.02 | 0.06 | 6 | 1.60 | 0.17 | 0.09 | 4 | 1.88 | –0.15 | 0.13 | 6 | 1.43
Pr ii | 0.20 | 0.02 | 2 | 0.92 | –0.11 | 0.05 | 4 | 0.61 | 0.18 | 0.24 | 4 | 0.99 | –0.20 | 0.16 | 4 | 0.52
Nd ii | 0.05 | 0.13 | 2 | 1.47 | –0.05 | 0.11 | 6 | 1.37 | 0.18 | 0.05 | 3 | 1.70 | –0.11 | 0.12 | 6 | 1.31
Sm ii | 0.22 | 0.03 | 2 | 1.18 | 0.06 | 0.12 | 4 | 1.02 | – | – | – | – | –0.01 | 0.14 | 2 | 0.95
Eu ii | 0.18 | 0.07 | 2 | 0.70 | 0.01 | 0.11 | 2 | 0.53 | 0.51 | 0.20 | 2 | 1.03 | –0.03 | 0.06 | 2 | 0.49
| HD 24040 | HD 29021 | HD 35759 | HD 89307
Ion | [M/H] | $\sigma$ | N | (M/H) | [M/H] | $\sigma$ | N | (M/H) | [M/H] | $\sigma$ | N | (M/H) | [M/H] | $\sigma$ | N | (M/H)
Li i | – | – | 1 | 1.10 | – | – | 1 | 1.00 | – | – | 1 | 2.73 | – | – | 1 | 2.25
C i | 0.13 | 0.09 | 3 | 8.56 | –0.18 | 0.08 | 3 | 8.25 | 0.04 | 0.09 | 3 | 8.47 | –0.16 | 0.08 | 3 | 8.27
O i | 0.14 | – | 1 | 8.83 | –0.12 | – | 1 | 8.48 | 0.16 | – | 1 | 8.85 | 0.08 | – | 1 | 8.77
Na i | 0.25 | 0.08 | 3 | 6.49 | –0.21 | 0.09 | 3 | 6.03 | –0.08 | 0.02 | 2 | 6.24 | –0.09 | 0.04 | 3 | 6.15
Mg i | 0.27 | 0.15 | 5 | 7.87 | 0.00 | 0.06 | 4 | 7.60 | 0.10 | 0.10 | 5 | 7.70 | –0.04 | 0.11 | 5 | 7.56
Al i | 0.17 | 0.05 | 2 | 6.62 | – | – | – | – | –0.07 | 0.01 | 2 | 6.23 | –0.19 | 0.04 | 2 | 6.26
Si i | 0.27 | 0.11 | 15 | 7.78 | –0.06 | 0.12 | 11 | 7.46 | 0.02 | 0.14 | 13 | 7.49 | 0.01 | 0.07 | 11 | 7.52
S i | 0.16 | 0.03 | 2 | 7.28 | –0.24 | – | 1 | 6.88 | –0.11 | 0.11 | 2 | 7.10 | –0.23 | 0.01 | 2 | 6.89
Ca i | 0.24 | 0.10 | 10 | 6.58 | –0.21 | 0.07 | 9 | 6.13 | -0.03 | 0.08 | 8 | 6.35 | –0.04 | 0.05 | 9 | 6.30
Sc ii | 0.29 | 0.05 | 6 | 3.44 | –0.08 | 0.13 | 7 | 3.07 | 0.13 | 0.12 | 6 | 3.38 | 0.09 | 0.06 | 7 | 3.24
Ti i | 0.28 | 0.08 | 23 | 5.23 | –0.19 | 0.10 | 23 | 4.76 | –0.08 | 0.07 | 19 | 4.95 | 0.01 | 0.07 | 25 | 4.96
Ti ii | 0.24 | 0.10 | 5 | 5.19 | –0.21 | 0.16 | 4 | 4.74 | –0.04 | 0.13 | 4 | 4.99 | 0.01 | 0.13 | 5 | 4.96
V i | 0.27 | 0.04 | 9 | 4.20 | –0.15 | 0.07 | 5 | 3.78 | –0.21 | 0.07 | 6 | 3.90 | –0.10 | 0.07 | 10 | 3.83
Cr i | 0.16 | 0.06 | 22 | 5.80 | –0.24 | 0.12 | 12 | 5.40 | –0.21 | 0.09 | 19 | 5.55 | –0.13 | 0.08 | 23 | 5.51
Mn i | 0.21 | 0.06 | 5 | 5.64 | –0.30 | 0.12 | 5 | 5.13 | –0.18 | 0.10 | 5 | 5.25 | –0.23 | 0.07 | 8 | 5.20
Fe i | 0.23 | 0.10 | 220 | 7.73 | –0.19 | 0.11 | 227 | 7.31 | –0.04 | 0.08 | 192 | 7.54 | –0.05 | 0.10 | 227 | 7.45
Fe ii | 0.22 | 0.09 | 29 | 7.72 | –0.22 | 0.12 | 23 | 7.28 | –0.04 | 0.06 | 19 | 7.54 | –0.05 | 0.10 | 29 | 7.45
Ni i | 0.31 | 0.05 | 48 | 6.53 | –0.18 | 0.11 | 48 | 6.04 | –0.05 | 0.07 | 40 | 6.25 | –0.05 | 0.07 | 52 | 6.17
Zn i | 0.33 | 0.12 | 4 | 4.89 | –0.10 | 0.09 | 4 | 4.46 | 0.18 | 0.06 | 4 | 4.63 | –0.07 | 0.11 | 4 | 4.49
Y ii | 0.15 | 0.17 | 4 | 2.36 | –0.23 | 0.12 | 4 | 2.01 | 0.03 | 0.05 | 4 | 2.22 | –0.12 | 0.12 | 5 | 2.09
Zr ii | 0.17 | 0.12 | 3 | 2.75 | –0.17 | 0.09 | 3 | 2.41 | 0.09 | 0.19 | 2 | 2.67 | –0.10 | 0.09 | 3 | 2.68
Ba ii | 0.14 | 0.06 | 3 | 2.32 | –0.16 | 0.12 | 3 | 2.02 | 0.25 | 0.07 | 3 | 2.43 | 0.04 | 0.10 | 4 | 2.22
Ce ii | 0.10 | 0.11 | 6 | 1.68 | –0.09 | 0.10 | 7 | 1.49 | 0.01 | 0.08 | 7 | 1.72 | 0.02 | 0.10 | 7 | 1.60
Pr ii | 0.05 | 0.14 | 4 | 0.77 | –0.06 | 0.18 | 3 | 0.66 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 2 | 0.85 | –0.10 | 0.11 | 4 | 0.62
Nd ii | 0.03 | 0.12 | 6 | 1.45 | –0.05 | 0.12 | 7 | 1.37 | –0.07 | 0.02 | 3 | 1.45 | –0.01 | 0.06 | 6 | 1.41
Sm ii | 0.16 | 0.13 | 5 | 1.12 | – | – | – | – | 0.04 | 0.08 | 3 | 1.14 | 0.02 | 0.11 | 4 | 0.98
Eu ii | 0.06 | 0.11 | 2 | 0.58 | –0.07 | 0.03 | 2 | 0.45 | 0.03 | 0.14 | 2 | 0.55 | 0.13 | 0.11 | 2 | 0.58

  * N – is the number of lines used in analysis

Table A2 (continued)
HD 113337 HD 141399 HD 143105 HD 150706 Ion [M/H] $\sigma$ N (M/H) [M/H]
$\sigma$ N (M/H) [M/H] $\sigma$ N (M/H) [M/H] $\sigma$ N (M/H) Li i – – 1 – –
– 1 0.71 – – 1 2.30 – – 1 2.60 C i 0.06 0.05 3 8.49 0.14 0.07 3 8.70 0.10 0.09
3 8.53 –0.13 0.09 3 8.30 O i 0.11 – 1 8.8 0.41 – 1 9.10 0.09 – 1 8.78 0.07 – 1
8.76 Na i 0.09 0.06 3 6.33 0.36 0.04 2 6.68 0.07 0.13 3 6.31 –0.11 0.06 3 6.13
Mg i 0.12 0.08 6 7.72 0.41 0.1 4 8.01 0.11 0.10 5 7.71 –0.03 0.07 6 7.57 Al i
0.01 0.06 2 6.46 0.40 0.08 2 6.70 –0.01 0.06 2 6.43 –0.16 0.07 2 6.29 Si i
0.21 0.03 9 7.72 0.43 0.15 10 7.94 0.10 0.04 12 7.61 0.08 0.06 12 7.59 S i
0.09 0.04 2 7.21 0.22 – 1 7.43 –0.02 0.08 2 7.10 –0.12 0.08 2 7.00 Ca i 0.17
0.06 10 6.51 0.38 0.06 6 6.72 0.07 0.11 10 6.41 0.08 0.10 10 6.42 Sc ii 0.15
0.10 7 3.3 0.59 0.13 6 3.84 0.02 0.09 7 3.17 0.14 0.08 7 3.29 Ti i 0.07 0.05
24 5.02 0.45 0.06 17 5.40 –0.10 0.12 25 4.85 0.04 0.08 25 4.99 Ti ii 0.08 0.07
5 5.03 0.45 0.18 4 5.40 –0.10 0.15 4 4.85 0.06 0.13 5 5.01 V i 0.06 0.08 9
3.99 0.34 0.09 7 4.45 –0.03 0.11 10 3.90 –0.07 0.06 11 3.86 Cr i 0.14 0.04 23
5.78 0.24 0.08 17 6.00 –0.13 0.10 23 5.51 -0.03 0.07 23 5.61 Mn i –0.05 0.09 8
5.38 0.49 0.15 4 5.92 –0.05 0.10 7 5.38 –0.08 0.1 5 5.35 Fe i 0.14 0.09 229
7.64 0.47 0.10 190 7.97 0.01 0.11 216 7.51 0.05 0.11 222 7.55 Fe ii 0.15 0.09
31 7.65 0.47 0.08 21 7.97 0.00 0.11 31 7.50 0.04 0.09 29 7.54 Ni i 0.09 0.10
50 6.31 0.40 0.07 39 6.70 -0.05 0.10 50 6.17 0.01 0.08 49 6.23 Zn i 0.09 0.06
4 4.65 0.55 0.04 2 4.99 0.01 0.06 4 4.57 0.06 0.04 4 4.62 Y ii 0.06 0.09 6
2.27 0.38 0.06 2 2.57 –0.03 0.11 6 2.18 0.01 0.09 5 2.22 Zr ii 0.12 0.07 3
2.70 0.37 0.10 3 3.25 –0.02 0.14 3 2.56 0.13 0.12 3 2.71 Ba ii 0.33 0.08 3
2.51 0.52 0.07 3 2.70 0.05 0.02 3 2.23 0.36 0.06 3 2.54 Ce ii 0.06 0.10 7 1.64
0.48 0.10 5 2.19 0.04 0.12 6 1.62 0.06 0.13 7 1.64 Pr ii –0.03 0.07 4 0.69
0.36 0.22 4 1.17 –0.03 0.12 5 0.69 –0.07 0.09 4 0.65 Nd ii 0.02 0.10 7 1.44
0.42 0.07 5 1.94 –0.02 0.14 6 1.4 0.13 0.10 9 1.55 Sm ii 0.04 0.03 4 1.00 – –
– – 0.08 0.12 3 1.04 0.02 0.13 3 0.98 Eu ii 0.15 0.06 2 0.67 0.32 0.19 2 0.84
0.04 0.10 2 0.56 0.05 0.11 2 0.53 HD 154345 HD 159243 HD 164595 HD 191806 Ion
[M/H] $\sigma$ N (M/H) [M/H] $\sigma$ N (M/H) [M/H] $\sigma$ N (M/H) [M/H]
$\sigma$ N (M/H) Li i – – 1 0.5 – – 1 2.6 – – 1 1.00 – – 1 2.81 C i –0.18 0.13
3 8.25 0.04 0.07 3 8.47 –0.07 0.06 3 8.36 0.25 0.04 3 8.68 O i –0.04 – 1 8.65
0.06 – 1 8.75 –0.05 – 1 8.64 0.28 – 1 8.97 Na i –0.04 0.07 3 6.20 –0.01 0.02 2
6.31 –0.06 0.09 3 6.18 0.34 0.03 2 6.66 Mg i –0.03 0.07 6 7.57 0.02 0.11 2
7.62 0 0.06 6 7.60 0.25 0.09 3 7.85 Al i –0.14 0.06 2 6.31 –0.17 0.04 2 6.28
–0.12 0.05 2 6.33 0.26 0.01 2 6.56 Si i –0.01 0.12 15 7.50 0.07 0.12 11 7.58
0.01 0.07 11 7.52 0.28 0.13 9 7.79 S i –0.13 0.07 2 6.99 –0.06 – 1 7.15 –0.05
0.07 2 7.07 0.19 – 1 7.40 Ca i –0.07 0.08 10 6.27 –0.02 0.04 6 6.36 –0.03 0.06
10 6.31 0.22 0.06 3 6.60 Sc ii 0.03 0.07 6 3.18 0.21 0.15 6 3.46 0.07 0.08 7
3.22 0.35 0.08 4 3.60 Ti i –0.01 0.09 27 4.94 0.08 0.09 15 5.03 0.03 0.05 24
4.98 0.28 0.08 18 5.23 Ti ii –0.12 0.12 4 4.83 0.04 0.14 4 4.99 0.00 0.13 5
4.95 0.27 0.12 4 5.22 V i 0.02 0.08 10 3.95 –0.19 0.01 4 3.92 0.01 0.07 10
3.94 0.11 0.06 6 4.22 Cr i –0.1 0.07 22 5.54 –0.13 0.1 16 5.63 –0.06 0.08 23
5.58 0.18 0.07 16 5.94 Mn i 0.17 0.13 5 5.60 0.13 0.06 5 5.64 –0.03 0.06 5
5.46 0.32 0.11 4 5.75 Fe i –0.05 0.10 229 7.45 0.14 0.08 193 7.64 –0.01 0.11
229 7.49 0.36 0.09 195 7.86 Fe ii –0.03 0.10 33 7.47 0.15 0.04 21 7.65 –0.02
0.09 31 7.48 0.38 0.05 22 7.88 Ni i –0.04 0.06 48 6.18 –0.01 0.06 36 6.29 0.02
0.08 51 6.24 0.32 0.05 40 6.62 Zn i –0.05 0.11 4 4.51 0.23 0.12 4 4.68 –0.01
0.04 4 4.55 0.49 0.03 2 4.94 Y ii –0.03 0.13 6 2.18 0.32 0.04 3 2.51 –0.06
0.09 5 2.15 0.34 0.20 4 2.58 Zr ii 0.1 0.09 3 2.68 0.11 0.08 2 2.79 0.04 0.12
3 2.62 0.42 0.11 3 3.00 Ba ii 0.01 0.03 2 2.19 0.32 0.08 3 2.50 0.08 0.05 3
2.26 0.42 0.12 3 2.60 Ce ii 0.02 0.08 10 1.60 0.16 0.11 4 1.88 0.01 0.10 9
1.59 0.42 0.15 4 2.00 Pr ii –0.06 0.14 4 0.66 0.22 0.17 3 1.03 –0.12 0.13 4
0.59 0.32 0.16 3 1.04 Nd ii 0.05 0.11 9 1.47 0.24 0.09 3 1.76 –0.02 0.06 8
1.40 0.34 0.15 4 1.76 Sm ii 0.10 0.13 5 1.06 0.20 0.06 2 1.30 0.00 0.11 4 0.96
0.43 – 1 1.39 Eu ii 0.10 0.11 2 0.62 0.16 0.18 2 0.68 0.03 0.14 2 0.55 0.23
0.14 2 0.75

  * N – is the number of lines used in analysis

Table A2 (continued)
HD 214823 HD 219828 HD 220842 HD 221585 Ion [M/H] $\sigma$ N (M/H) [M/H]
$\sigma$ N (M/H) [M/H] $\sigma$ N (M/H) [M/H] $\sigma$ N (M/H) Li i – – 1 1.50
– – – 2.30 – – 1 1.16 – – – 1.62 C i 0.06 0.10 3 8.49 0.11 0.06 3 8.54 –0.13
0.05 3 8.30 0.29 0.06 3 8.72 O i 0.11 – 1 8.80 0.13 – 1 8.82 –0.06 – 1 8.63
0.28 – 1 8.97 Na i 0.16 0.02 3 6.40 0.13 0.15 3 6.37 –0.16 0.02 3 6.08 0.30
0.15 3 6.54 Mg i 0.15 0.06 6 7.75 0.16 0.05 4 7.76 –0.07 0.09 6 7.53 0.30 0.15
4 7.90 Al i 0.04 0.11 2 6.49 0.08 0.08 2 6.53 –0.28 0.01 2 6.17 0.24 0.05 2
6.69 Si i 0.16 0.09 14 7.67 0.33 0.09 13 7.84 –0.09 0.08 12 7.42 0.27 0.12 12
7.78 S i 0.16 0.08 3 7.28 0.14 0.05 2 7.26 –0.14 0.03 2 6.98 0.28 – 1 7.40 Ca
i 0.12 0.07 10 6.46 0.16 0.13 9 6.50 –0.11 0.10 12 6.23 0.18 0.09 8 6.52 Sc ii
0.12 0.09 6 3.27 0.32 0.07 7 3.47 –0.01 0.12 7 3.14 – – – Ti i 0.13 0.09 25
5.08 0.22 0.11 23 5.17 –0.14 0.09 27 4.81 0.34 0.11 26 5.29 Ti ii 0.10 0.09 4
5.05 0.18 0.23 5 5.13 –0.16 0.12 5 4.79 0.30 0.03 3 5.25 V i 0.10 0.11 12 4.03
0.22 0.16 6 4.15 –0.16 0.11 11 3.77 0.40 0.12 8 4.33 Cr i 0.07 0.10 23 5.71
0.09 0.11 23 5.73 –0.18 0.08 23 5.46 0.24 0.12 19 5.88 Mn i 0.07 0.05 5 5.50
0.04 0.09 5 5.47 –0.13 0.02 5 5.30 0.25 0.12 4 5.68 Fe i 0.13 0.11 224 7.63
0.19 0.12 202 7.69 –0.1 0.11 224 7.40 0.33 0.13 210 7.83 Fe ii 0.10 0.11 31
7.60 0.16 0.13 21 7.66 –0.11 0.09 31 7.39 0.32 0.12 25 7.82 Ni i 0.14 0.07 47
6.36 0.25 0.11 42 6.47 –0.14 0.08 52 6.08 0.41 0.11 48 6.63 Zn i 0.14 0.08 4
4.70 0.14 0.04 4 4.70 –0.04 0.12 4 4.52 0.36 0.11 4 4.92 Y ii 0.05 0.10 6 2.26
0.08 0.09 4 2.32 0.03 0.15 5 2.24 0.46 0.20 3 2.70 Zr ii 0.10 0.11 3 2.68 0.24
0.10 3 2.82 0.05 0.08 3 2.63 0.42 0.05 3 3.00 Ba ii 0.21 0.05 3 2.39 0.04 0.06
3 2.22 0.09 0.0.08 3 2.27 0.25 0.09 3 2.43 Ce ii –0.01 0.06 9 1.57 0.12 0.08 7
1.70 0.04 0.06 10 1.62 0.26 0.10 7 1.84 Pr ii –0.14 0.06 4 0.58 0.03 0.1 3
0.75 –0.09 0.07 4 0.63 0.17 0.15 3 0.89 Nd ii 0.01 0.05 10 1.43 0.18 0.14 6
1.60 0 0.13 9 1.42 0.35 0.15 6 1.77 Sm ii 0.06 0.12 5 1.02 0.19 0.14 4 1.15
0.18 0.17 6 1.14 – – – – Eu ii 0.15 0.12 2 0.67 0.16 0.16 2 0.68 0.05 0.18 2
0.57 0.16 0.14 2 0.68 HD 222155 HIP 65407 HIP 91258 HIP 109384 Ion [M/H]
$\sigma$ N (M/H) [M/H] $\sigma$ N (M/H) [M/H] $\sigma$ N (M/H) [M/H] $\sigma$
N (M/H) Li i – – 1 0.93 – – 1 1.09 – – 1 0.0 – – 1 0.5 C i –0.11 0.09 3 8.32
0.27 0.10 3 8.70 0.27 0.09 3 8.70 –0.13 0.06 3 8.30 O i 0.07 – 1 8.76 0.36 – 1
9.05 0.40 – 1 9.00 0.00 0.06 1 8.69 Na i –0.11 0.05 3 6.13 0.34 0.04 2 6.66
0.32 – 3 6.56 –0.25 0.16 3 5.99 Mg i –0.01 0.11 3 7.59 0.28 0.06 3 7.88 0.30
0.04 3 7.90 0.01 0.12 3 7.60 Al i –0.12 0.07 2 6.33 0.26 0.03 2 6.56 0.2 0.06
2 6.51 –0.17 0.02 2 6.28 Si i –0.02 0.12 14 7.49 0.26 0.18 12 7.77 0.25 0.19
12 7.76 –0.07 0.12 10 7.44 S i –0.08 0.12 3 7.04 0.02 – 1 7.23 -0.08 – 1 7.13
–0.23 – 1 6.89 Ca i –0.04 0.11 11 6.30 0.21 0.08 6 6.59 0.27 0.09 3 6.61 –0.26
0.11 8 6.08 Sc ii 0.08 0.06 6 3.23 0.40 0.10 5 3.65 0.49 0.12 6 3.64 –0.06
0.11 5 3.09 Ti i –0.05 0.09 27 4.90 0.28 0.11 20 5.23 0.29 0.07 18 5.24 –0.16
0.13 19 4.79 Ti ii –0.05 0.10 5 4.90 0.25 0.19 3 5.20 0.19 0.16 3 5.14 –0.17
0.19 4 4.78 V i –0.14 0.07 9 3.79 0.37 0.13 7 4.48 0.48 0.21 7 4.41 –0.09 0.10
5 3.84 Cr i –0.15 0.09 23 5.49 0.19 0.11 18 5.95 0.25 0.07 14 5.89 –0.35 0.13
22 5.29 Mn i –0.09 0.10 5 5.34 0.29 0.05 4 5.75 0.23 0.10 4 5.66 –0.43 0.11 5
5.00 Fe i –0.06 0.09 222 7.44 0.35 0.09 188 7.85 0.30 0.10 178 7.80 –0.24 0.13
196 7.26 Fe ii –0.05 0.08 31 7.45 0.33 0.09 19 7.83 0.27 0.12 15 7.77 –0.26
0.08 19 7.24 Ni i –0.07 0.07 49 6.15 0.35 0.10 42 6.65 0.25 0.09 36 6.55 –0.16
0.11 44 6.06 Zn i 0.02 0.03 4 4.58 0.49 0.11 3 4.94 – – – –0.13 0.06 3 4.43 Y
ii 0.06 0.11 5 2.27 0.59 0.24 4 2.78 – – – – –0.23 0.18 4 2.01 Zr ii 0.09 0.11
3 2.67 0.54 0.18 3 3.12 0.63 – 2 3.21 0.08 0.14 3 2.66 Ba ii 0.19 0.08 3 2.37
0.40 0.04 3 2.58 0.37 – 1 2.55 –0.23 0.11 3 1.95 Ce ii 0.07 0.10 10 1.65 0.44
0.13 5 2.15 0.52 – 1 2.10 –0.19 0.04 3 1.39 Pr ii –0.20 0.03 4 0.52 0.52 0.21
4 1.33 0.25 – 1 0.97 –0.1 0.08 2 0.62 Nd ii 0.11 0.09 9 1.53 0.23 0.12 3 1.75
0.47 0.20 3 1.89 –0.06 0.18 4 1.36 Sm ii 0.04 0.16 5 1.00 0.51 0.38 3 1.61 – –
– – – – – – Eu ii 0.13 0.14 2 0.52 0.30 0.14 2 0.62 0.28 0.14 2 0.80 –0.07 – 1
0.45

  * N – is the number of lines used in analysis

Table A2 (continued)
HIP 109600 Ion [M/H] $\sigma$ N (M/H) Li i – – 1 1.00 C i –0.02 0.04 2 8.41 O
i –0.06 – 1 8.63 Na i –0.13 0.01 2 6.19 Mg i 0.11 0.07 3 7.70 Al i –0.01 0.01
2 6.29 Si i –0.08 0.12 11 7.43 S i – – – – Ca i –0.15 0.10 2 6.23 Sc ii 0.1
0.12 6 3.35 Ti i 0.04 0.07 20 4.99 Ti ii 0.02 0.22 3 4.97 V i –0.09 0.14 6
4.02 Cr i –0.26 0.10 16 5.50 Mn i –0.18 0.06 3 5.25 Fe i –0.07 0.10 183 7.43
Fe ii –0.08 0.09 21 7.42 Ni i –0.13 0.06 38 6.17 Zn i 0.09 – 1 4.54 Y ii 0.16
0.13 3 2.41 Zr ii 0.02 0.20 2 2.90 Ba ii –0.02 0.13 2 2.16 Ce ii 0.03 0.12 3
1.74 Pr ii –0.09 0.13 2 0.63 Nd ii 0.04 0.05 3 1.56 Sm ii – – – – Eu ii 0.18 –
1 0.70

  * N – is the number of the lines used in analysis.