4.7 Article

A BUDGET AND ACCOUNTING OF METALS AT z ∼ 0: RESULTS FROM THE COS-HALOS SURVEY

Journal

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
Volume 786, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/786/1/54

Keywords

galaxies: abundances; galaxies: halos; galaxies: ISM; galaxies: stellar content; intergalactic medium; quasars: absorption lines

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We present a budget and accounting of metals in and around star-forming galaxies at z similar to 0. We combine empirically derived star formation histories with updated supernova and asymptotic giant branch yields and rates to estimate the total mass of metals produced by galaxies with present-day stellar mass of 10(9.3)-10(11.6)M(circle dot). On the accounting side of the ledger, we show that a surprisingly constant 20%-25% mass fraction of produced metals remain in galaxies' stars, interstellar gas and interstellar dust, with little dependence of this fraction on the galaxy stellar mass (omitting those metals immediately locked up in remnants). Thus, the bulk of metals are outside of galaxies, produced in the progenitors of today's L* galaxies. The COS-Halos survey is uniquely able to measure the mass of metals in the circumgalactic medium (CGM, to impact parameters of < 150 kpc) of low-redshift similar to L* galaxies. Using these data, we map the distribution of CGM metals as traced by both the highly ionized Ovi ion and a suite of low-ionization species; combined with constraints on circumgalactic dust and hotter X-ray emitting gas out to similar impact parameters, we show that similar to 40% of metals produced by M-star similar to 10(10)M(circle dot) galaxies can be easily accounted for out to 150 kpc. With the current data, we cannot rule out a constant mass of metals within this fixed physical radius. This census provides a crucial boundary condition for the eventual fate of metals in galaxy evolution models.

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