4.7 Article

An 850 micron SCUBA survey of the Hubble Deep Field-North GOODS region

Journal

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
Volume 613, Issue 2, Pages 655-671

Publisher

UNIV CHICAGO PRESS
DOI: 10.1086/423232

Keywords

cosmology : observations; galaxies : evolution; galaxies : formation; galaxies : high-redshift; radio continuum : galaxies; submillimeter

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The Hubble Deep Field - North (HDF-N) is one of the best-studied extragalactic fields, and ultradeep optical, radio, X-ray, and mid-infrared wide-field images are available for this area. Here we present an 850 mum survey around the HDF-N, covering most of the area imaged by the Advanced Camera for Surveys as a part of the Great Observatories Origins Deep Survey. Our map has 0.4 - 4 mJy sensitivities (1 sigma) over an area of similar to 110 arcmin(2), and there are 45 sources detected at greater than 3 sigma. After correcting for the effects of noise, confusion, incompleteness, and the Eddington bias using Monte Carlo simulations, we find that the detected 850 mum sources with fluxes greater than 2 mJy have a surface density of 3200(-1000)(+1900) deg(-2) and account for about 24% - 34% of the far-infrared extragalactic background light. Using the deep radio interferometric image and the deep X-ray image, we are able to accurately locate similar to 60% of the bright submillimeter sources. In addition, by assuming the Arp 220 spectral energy distribution in the submillimeter and radio, we estimate millimetric redshifts for the radio-detected submillimeter sources and redshift lower limits for the ones not detected in the radio. Using the millimetric redshifts of the radio-identified sources and spectroscopic and optical photometric redshifts for galaxies around the submillimeter positions, we find a median redshift of 2.0 for 11 possibly identified sources, or a lower limit of 2.4 for the median redshift of our 4 sigma sample.

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