Berkeley 28
(MWSC 1002; Biurakan 10; OCL 532)
0.90
UTI
0.76
CN
1.0
Cdens
0.75
CC3
1.0
Clit
1.0
Cdup
Radius (P>50% members)
1.7 [arcmin]
- CN 0.76 Rich
- Cdens 1.0 Very dense
- CC3 0.75 High quality
- Clit 1.0 Very well-studied
- Cdup 1.0 Unique
Overview
Berkeley 28 is a rich, very dense object of high C3 quality. Its parallax locates it at a moderate distance, above the mid-plane, affected by moderate extinction. It is catalogued as a near-solar metallicity, intermediate-age cluster, but with a large variance across recent sources for the age and mass parameters (see Parameters). It is very well-studied in the literature.
Distant
Moderate extinction
Near-solar metallicity
Intermediate age
Data
| Reference | Year | RA [deg] | DEC [deg] | Plx [mas] | pmRA [mas/yr] | pmDE [mas/yr] | Rv [km/s] |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| UCC | â | 103.029 | 2.92 | 0.235 | -1.038 | 0.18 | 67.763 |
| Li et al. | 2025 | 103.028 | 2.922 | 0.209 | -0.987 | 0.154 | â |
| Hu & Soubiran | 2025 | 103.033 | 2.914 | â | â | â | â |
| Almeida et al. | 2025 | 103.028 | 2.921 | â | â | â | â |
| Hunt & Reffert | 2024 | 103.029 | 2.919 | 0.224 | -1.028 | 0.189 | 66.923 |
| Cavallo et al. | 2024 | 103.033 | 2.914 | 0.221 | â | â | â |
| Hunt & Reffert | 2023 | 103.029 | 2.919 | 0.224 | -1.028 | 0.189 | 66.923 |
| Almeida et al. | 2023 | 103.033 | 2.923 | â | â | â | â |
| Just et al. | 2023 | 103.028 | 2.912 | â | â | â | â |
| Jaehnig et al. | 2021 | 103.029 | 2.914 | 0.252 | -1.02 | 0.197 | â |
| Rain et al. | 2021 | 103.028 | 2.922 | 0.209 | -0.987 | 0.154 | â |
| Dias et al. | 2021 | 103.028 | 2.921 | 0.202 | -0.982 | 0.124 | 68.074 |
| Cantat-Gaudin et al. | 2020 | 103.028 | 2.922 | 0.209 | -0.987 | 0.154 | â |
| Cantat-Gaudin & Anders | 2020 | 103.028 | 2.922 | 0.209 | -0.987 | 0.154 | â |
| Soubiran et al. | 2018 | 103.028 | 2.922 | â | â | â | 69.1 |
| Bica et al. | 2019 | 103.028 | 2.919 | â | â | â | â |
| Cantat-Gaudin et al. | 2018 | 103.028 | 2.922 | 0.209 | -0.987 | 0.154 | â |
| Loktin & Popova | 2017 | 103.035 | 2.934 | â | -0.486 | -0.567 | â |
| Kharchenko et al. | 2016 | 103.028 | 2.912 | â | â | â | â |
| Dias et al. | 2014 | 103.05 | 2.933 | â | 1.68 | -1.54 | â |
| Kharchenko et al. | 2013 | 103.035 | 2.91 | â | -0.49 | -2.56 | â |
| Gozha et al. | 2012 | 103.05 | 2.933 | â | â | â | â |
| van den Bergh | 2006 | 103.033 | 2.911 | â | â | â | â |
| Dias et al. | 2002 | 103.05 | 2.933 | â | 1.68 | -1.54 | â |
đĄ Note: The UCC values are estimated from its identified members.
| Reference | Year | Dist [kpc] | Av [mag] | DAv [mag] | Age [Myr] | [Fe/H] [dex] | Mass [Msun] | Bfr | BSS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Li et al. | 2025 | 3.71 | 1.82 | â | 943 | -0.246 | â | â | â |
| Hu & Soubiran | 2025 | â | â | â | â | -0.250* | â | â | â |
| Almeida et al. | 2025 | 4.52 | 2.29 | â | 159 | â | 658 | â | â |
| Hunt & Reffert | 2024 | â | â | â | â | â | 925* | â | â |
| Cavallo et al. | 2024 | 2.90 | 2.01 | â | 589 | -0.520 | â | â | â |
| Hunt & Reffert | 2023 | 3.93 | 1.94 | 1.77 | 340 | â | â | â | â |
| Almeida et al. | 2023 | 3.58 | 2.12 | â | 335 | -0.257 | 356* | 0.74 | â |
| Just et al. | 2023 | â | â | â | 34 | â | 85 | â | â |
| Jaehnig et al. | 2021 | 4.10* | â | â | â | â | â | â | â |
| Rain et al. | 2021 | 4.20 | 2.36 | â | 69 | â | â | â | 0 |
| Dias et al. | 2021 | 4.52 | 2.29 | â | 159 | -0.059 | â | â | â |
| Cantat-Gaudin et al. | 2020 | 4.79 | 1.60 | â | 347 | â | â | â | â |
| Cantat-Gaudin & Anders | 2020 | 4.20 | â | â | â | â | â | â | â |
| Soubiran et al. | 2018 | 4.20 | â | â | â | â | â | â | â |
| Cantat-Gaudin et al. | 2018 | 4.20 | â | â | â | â | â | â | â |
| Loktin & Popova | 2017 | 2.79 | 2.11 | â | 122 | â | â | â | â |
| Kharchenko et al. | 2016 | 1.96 | 2.26 | â | 34 | â | â | â | â |
| Kharchenko et al. | 2013 | 1.96 | 2.26 | â | 34 | â | â | â | â |
| Gozha et al. | 2012 | 2.56 | â | â | 70 | -0.610 | â | â | â |
| van den Bergh | 2006 | 2.56 | 2.36 | â | 71 | â | â | â | â |
| Dias et al. | 2002 | 2.56 | 2.36 | â | 70 | â | â | â | â |
(*): Indicates that this parameter is assigned more than one value in the corresponding reference.


Almeida et al. (2025)
Mass determination: good fit. Isochrone match: intermediate fit.
Cavallo et al. (2024)
Gold sample.