4.7 Article

ESTIMATING BLACK HOLE MASSES IN ACTIVE GALACTIC NUCLEI USING THE Mg II λ2800 EMISSION LINE

Journal

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
Volume 707, Issue 2, Pages 1334-1346

Publisher

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/707/2/1334

Keywords

black hole physics; galaxies: active; quasars: emission lines; quasars: general

Funding

  1. Chinese NSF [NSF-10533050, NSF-10703006]
  2. National Basic Research Program of China (973 Program) [2009CB824800]
  3. CAS Knowledge Innovation Program [KJCX2-YW-T05]
  4. Carnegie Institution for Science. Funding
  5. Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
  6. National Science Foundation
  7. U.S. Department of Energy
  8. National Aeronautics and Space Administration
  9. Japanese Monbukagakusho
  10. Max Planck Society
  11. Higher Education Funding Council for England

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We investigate the relationship between the linewidths of broad Mg II lambda 2800 and H beta in active galactic nuclei (AGNs) to refine them as tools to estimate black hole (BH) masses. We perform a detailed spectral analysis of a large sample of AGNs at intermediate redshifts selected from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, along with a smaller sample of archival ultraviolet spectra for nearby sources monitored with reverberation mapping (RM). Careful attention is devoted to accurate spectral decomposition, especially in the treatment of narrow-line blending and Fe II contamination. We show that, contrary to popular belief, the velocity width of Mg II tends to be smaller than that of H beta, suggesting that the two species are not cospatial in the broad-line region. Using these findings and recently updated BH mass measurements from RM, we present a new calibration of the empirical prescriptions for estimating virial BH masses for AGNs using the broad Mg II and H beta lines. We show that the BH masses derived from our new formalisms show subtle but important differences compared to some of the mass estimators currently used in the literature.

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