4.7 Article

ON THE ORIGINS OF THE DIFFUSE Hα EMISSION: IONIZED GAS OR DUST-SCATTERED Hα HALOS?

Journal

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
Volume 758, Issue 2, Pages -

Publisher

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/758/2/109

Keywords

Galaxy: halo; H II regions; ISM: structure; radiative transfer; scattering

Ask authors/readers for more resources

It is known that the diffuse H alpha emission outside of bright H II regions not only are very extended, but also can occur in distinct patches or filaments far from H II regions, and the line ratios of [S II] lambda 6716/H alpha and [N II] lambda 6583/H alpha observed far from bright H II regions are generally higher than those in the H II regions. These observations have been regarded as evidence against the dust-scattering origin of the diffuse H alpha emission (including other optical lines), and the effect of dust scattering has been neglected in studies on the diffuse H alpha emission. In this paper, we reexamine the arguments against dust scattering and find that the dust-scattering origin of the diffuse H alpha emission cannot be ruled out. As opposed to the previous contention, the expected dust-scattered H alpha halos surrounding H II regions are, in fact, in good agreement with the observed H alpha morphology. We calculate an extensive set of photoionization models by varying elemental abundances, ionizing stellar types, and clumpiness of the interstellar medium (ISM) and find that the observed line ratios of [S II]/H alpha, [N II]/H alpha, and He I lambda 5876/H alpha in the diffuse ISM accord well with the dust-scattered halos around H II regions, which are photoionized by late O- and/or early B-type stars. We also demonstrate that the H alpha absorption feature in the underlying continuum from the dust-scattered starlight (diffuse galactic light) and unresolved stars is able to substantially increase the [S II]/H alpha and [N II]/H alpha line ratios in the diffuse ISM.

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