4.7 Article

A centimetre-wave excess over free-free emission in planetary nebulae

Journal

MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY
Volume 382, Issue 4, Pages 1607-1622

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12366.x

Keywords

radiation mechanisms : general; planetary nebulae : general; radio continuum : ISM; submillimetre

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We report a centimetre-wave (cm-wave, 5-31 GHz) excess over free-free emission in planetary nebulae (PNe). Accurate 31- and 250-GHz measurements show that the 31-GHz flux densities in our sample are systematically higher than the level of optically thin free-free continuum extrapolated from 250-GHz. The 31-GHz excess is observed, within one standard deviation, in all 18 PNe with reliable 31- and 250-GHz data, and is significant in nine PNe. The only exception is the peculiar object M2-9, whose radio spectrum is that of an optically thick stellar wind. On average the fraction of non-free-free emission represents 51 per cent of the total flux density at 31 GHz, with a scatter of 11 per cent. The average 31-250 GHz spectral index of our sample is = -0.43 +/- 0.03 (in flux density, with a scatter of 0.14). The 31-250 GHz drop is reminiscent of the anomalous foreground observed in the diffuse interstellar medium (ISM) by cosmic microwave background (CMB) anisotropy experiments. The 5-31 GHz spectral indices are consistent with both flat spectra and spinning dust emissivities, given the 10 per cent calibration uncertainty of the comparison 5-GHz data. However, a detailed study of the objects with the largest cm-excess, including the low-frequency data available in the literature, shows that present spinning dust models alone cannot explain the cm-wave excess in PNe. Although we have no definitive interpretation of our data, the least implausible explanation involves a synchrotron component absorbed by a cold nebular screen. We give flux densities for 37 objects at 31 GHz, and for 26 objects at 250 GHz.

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