4.7 Article

ANOMALOUS MICROWAVE EMISSION FROM THE H II REGION RCW175

Journal

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
Volume 690, Issue 2, Pages 1585-1589

Publisher

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/690/2/1585

Keywords

ISM: individual (RCW175); radiation mechanisms: general; radio continuum: ISM

Funding

  1. NSF [9802989, 0098734, 0206416]
  2. FONDECYT [1030805]
  3. Chilean Center for Astrophysics FONDAP [15010003]
  4. Royal Society and STFC research fellowships
  5. STFC [ST/G002533/1, PP/D000963/1, ST/F010885/1, PP/D001102/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  6. Science and Technology Facilities Council [PP/D001102/1, ST/F010885/1, PP/D000963/1, ST/G002533/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  7. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien
  8. Division Of Astronomical Sciences [0098734] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  9. Division Of Astronomical Sciences
  10. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien [0206416, 9802989] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We present evidence for anomalous microwave emission in the RCW175 H II region. Motivated by 33 GHz 13' resolution data from the Very Small Array (VSA), we observed RCW175 at 31 GHz with the Cosmic Background Imager ( CBI) at a resolution of 4'. The region consists of two distinct components, G29.0-0.6 and G29.1-0.7, which are detected at high signal-to-noise ratio. The integrated flux density is 5.97 +/- 0.30 Jy at 31 GHz, in good agreement with the VSA. The 31 GHz flux density is 3.28 +/- 0.38 Jy (8.6s) above the expected value from optically thin free-free emission based on lower frequency radio data and thermal dust constrained by IRAS and WMAP data. Conventional emission mechanisms such as optically thick emission from ultracompact H II regions cannot easily account for this excess. We interpret the excess as evidence for electric dipole emission from small spinning dust grains, which does provide an adequate fit to the data.

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