4.7 Article

The relationship between X-ray and optical absorbers in active galactic nuclei

Journal

MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY
Volume 493, Issue 1, Pages 930-939

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/staa262

Keywords

dust, extinction; galaxies: active; galaxies: nuclei; galaxies: Seyfert

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We present a large compilation of reddening estimates from broad-line Balmer decrements for active galactic nuclei (AGNs) with measured X-ray column densities. The median reddening is E(B - V) approximate to 0.77 +/- 0.10 for type-1 to type-1.9 AGNs with reported column densities. This is notably higher than the median reddening of AGNs from the SDSS. We attribute this to the selection bias of the SDSS towards blue AGNs. For other AGNs, we find evidence of a publication bias against reporting low column densities. We find a significant correlation between N-H and E(B - V) but with a large scatter of +/- 1 dex. On average, the X-ray columns are consistent with those predicted from E(B - V) for a solar neighbourhood dust-to-gas ratio. We argue that the large scatter of column densities and reddenings can be explained by X-ray column density variability. For AGNs with detectable broad-line regions (BLRs) that have undergone significant changes of Seyfert type ('changing-look' AGNs), we do not find any statistically significant differences in N-H or E(B - V) compared to standard type-1 to type-1.9 AGNs. There is no evidence for any type-1 AGNs being Compton thick. We also analyse type-2 AGNs and find no significant correlation between N-H and narrow-line region reddening. We find no evidence for a previously claimed anticorrelation. The median column density of LINERs is 22.68 +/- 0.75 compared to a column density of 22.90 +/- 0.28 for type-2 AGNs. We find the majority of low column density type-2 AGNs are LINERs, but N-H is probably underestimated because of scattered light.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available