4.7 Article

ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF STELLAR MASSES IN GAMMA-RAY BURST HOST GALAXIES

Journal

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
Volume 721, Issue 2, Pages 1919-1927

Publisher

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/721/2/1919

Keywords

cosmology: observations; dust, extinction; galaxies: fundamental parameters; galaxies: ISM; gamma-ray burst: general; infrared: galaxies

Funding

  1. NASA
  2. Danish National Research Foundation
  3. Instrumentcenter for Dansk Astrofysik
  4. Niels Bohr Instituttet's International PhD School of Excellence
  5. ESA Research Fellowship
  6. Spitzer/NASA [1287913]
  7. National Science Foundation
  8. [AyA 2.004-01.515]
  9. [ESP 2.005-07.714-C03-03]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We analyze Spitzer images of 30 long-duration gamma-ray burst (GRB) host galaxies. We estimate their total stellar masses (M-*) based on the rest-frame K-band luminosities (L-Krest) and constrain their star formation rates (SFRs; not corrected for dust extinction) based on the rest-frame UV continua. Further, we compute a mean M-*/L-Krest = 0.45 M-circle dot/L-circle dot. We find that the hosts are low M-*, star-forming systems. The median M-* in our sample (< M-*>= 10(9.7) M-circle dot) is lower than that of field galaxies (e.g., Gemini Deep Deep Survey). The range spanned by M-* is 10(7) M-circle dot < M-* < 10(11) M-circle dot, while the range spanned by the dust-uncorrected UV SFR is 10(-2) M-circle dot yr(-1) < SFR < 10 M-circle dot yr(-1). There is no evidence for intrinsic evolution in the distribution of M-* with redshift. We show that extinction by dust must be present in at least 25% of the GRB hosts in our sample and suggest that this is a way to reconcile our finding of a relatively lower UV-based, specific SFR (phi = SFR/M-*) with previous claims that GRBs have some of the highest phi values. We also examine the effect that the inability to resolve the star-forming regions in the hosts has on phi

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