4.6 Article

Far-ultraviolet imaging of the Hubble Deep Field-North:: Star formation in normal galaxies at z < 1

Journal

ASTRONOMICAL JOURNAL
Volume 132, Issue 2, Pages 853-865

Publisher

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1086/505685

Keywords

cosmology : observations; galaxies : evolution; ultraviolet : galaxies

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We present far-ultraviolet (FUV) imaging of the Hubble Deep Field-North (HDF-N) taken with the Solar Blind Channel of the Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS SBC) and the FUV MAMA detector of the Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph onboard the Hubble Space Telescope. The full WFPC2 deep field has been observed at 1600 angstrom. We detect 134 galaxies and one star down to a limit of FUVAB similar to 29. All sources have counterparts in the WFPC2 image. Redshifts (spectroscopic or photometric) for the detected sources are in the range 0 < z < 1. We find that the FUV galaxy number counts are higher than those reported by GALEX, which we attribute at least in part to cosmic variance in the small HDF-N field of view. Six of the 13 Chandra sources at z < 0.85 in the HDF-N are detected in the FUV, and those are consistent with starbursts rather than active galactic nuclei. Cross-correlating with Spitzer sources in the field, we find that the FUV detections show general agreement with the expected L-IR/L-UV versus beta relationship. We infer star formation rates (SFRs), corrected for extinction using the UV slope, and find a median value of 0.3 M-circle dot yr(-1) for FUV-detected galaxies, with 75% of detected sources having SFR < 1 M-circle dot yr(-1). Examining the morphological distribution of sources, we find that about half of all FUV-detected sources are identified as spiral galaxies. Half of morphologically selected spheroid galaxies at z < 0: 85 are detected in the FUV, suggesting that such sources have had significant ongoing star formation in the epoch since z similar to 1.

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