4.6 Review

The 400 square degree ROSAT PSPC galaxy cluster survey:: Catalog and statistical calibration

Journal

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL SUPPLEMENT SERIES
Volume 172, Issue 2, Pages 561-582

Publisher

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1086/519457

Keywords

catalogs; galaxies : clusters : general; surveys; X-rays : galaxies

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We present a catalog of galaxy clusters detected in a new ROSAT PSPC survey. The survey is optimized to sample, at high redshifts, the mass range corresponding to T > 5 keV clusters at z = 0. Technically, our survey is the extension of the 160 square degree survey (160d). We use the same detection algorithm, thus preserving high quality of the resulting sample; the main difference is a significant increase in sky coverage. The new survey covers 397 deg(2) and is based on 1610 high Galactic latitude ROSAT PSPC pointings, virtually all pointed ROSAT data suitable for the detection of distant clusters. The search volume for X-ray luminous clusters within z < 1 exceeds that of the entire local universe (z < 0: 1). We detected 287 extended X-ray sources with fluxes f > 1: 4; 10(-13) ergs s(-1) cm(-2) in the 0.5-2 keV energy band, of which 266 (93%) are optically confirmed as galaxy clusters, groups or individual elliptical galaxies. This paper provides a description of the input data, the statistical calibration of the survey via Monte Carlo simulations, and the catalog of detected clusters. We also compare the basic results to those from previous, smaller area surveys and find good agreement for the log N-log S distribution and the local X-ray luminosity function. Our sample clearly shows a decrease in the number density for the most luminous clusters at z > 0.3. The comparison of our ROSAT-derived fluxes with the accurate Chandra measurements for a subset of high-redshift clusters demonstrates the validity of the 400 square degree survey's statistical calibration.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available