4.7 Article

The dust content of galaxies from z=0 to z=9

Journal

MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY
Volume 471, Issue 3, Pages 3152-3185

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stx1545

Keywords

methods: numerical; dust, extinction; galaxies: evolution; galaxies: formation; galaxies: ISM

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation [NSF PHY 11-25915]
  2. Simons Foundation through a Simons Investigator award

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We study the dust content of galaxies from z = 0 to z = 9 in semi-analytic models of galaxy formation that include new recipes to track the production and destruction of dust. We include condensation of dust in stellar ejecta, the growth of dust in the interstellar medium (ISM), the destruction of dust by supernovae and in the hot halo, and dusty winds and inflows. The rate of dust growth in the ISM depends on the metallicity and density of molecular clouds. Our fiducial model reproduces the relation between dust mass and stellar mass from z = 0 to z = 7, the number density of galaxies with dust masses less than 10(8.3)M(circle dot) and the cosmic density of dust at z = 0. The model accounts for the double power-law trend between dust-to-gas (DTG) ratio and gas-phase metallicity of local galaxies and the relation between DTG ratio and stellar mass. The dominant mode of dust formation is dust growth in the ISM, except for galaxies with M* < 10(7) M-circle dot, where condensation of dust in supernova ejecta dominates. The dust-to-metal ratio of galaxies depends on the gas-phase metallicity, unlike what is typically assumed in cosmological simulations. Model variants, including higher condensation efficiencies, a fixed time-scale for dust growth in the ISM, or no growth at all reproduce some of the observed constraints, but fail to simultaneously reproduce the shape of dust scaling relations and the dust mass of high-redshift galaxies.

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