4.5 Article

WISE morphological study of Wolf-Rayet nebulae

期刊

ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS
卷 578, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

EDP SCIENCES S A
DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525706

关键词

stars: massive; stars: Wolf-Rayet; stars: winds, outflows; ISM: bubbles

资金

  1. CSIC JAE-PREDOC (Spain) [2011-00189]
  2. Spanish MICINN (Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovacion) [AYA2008-01934, AYA2011-29754-C03-02]
  3. MEC (Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad)
  4. FEDER
  5. CONACyT [177864]
  6. PROMEP (Mexico)
  7. U.S. Goverment [NAG W-2166]
  8. National Science Foundation
  9. National Geographic Society
  10. Sloan Foundation
  11. Samuel Oschin Foundation
  12. Eastman Kodak Corporation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present a morphological study of nebulae around Wolf-Rayet (WR) stars using archival narrow-band optical and Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE) infrared images. The comparison among WISE images in different bands and optical images proves to be a very efficient procedure to identify the nebular emission from WR nebulae, and to disentangle it from that of the ISM material along the line of sight. In particular, WR nebulae are clearly detected in the WISE W4 band at 22 mu m. Analysis of available mid-IR Spitzer spectra shows that the emission in this band is dominated by thermal emission from dust spatially coincident with the thin nebular shell or most likely with the leading edge of the nebula. The WR nebulae in our sample present different morphologies that we classified into well defined WR bubbles (bubble B-type nebulae), clumpy and/or disrupted shells (clumpy/disrupted C-type nebulae), and material mixed with the diffuse medium (mixedM-type nebulae). The variety of morphologies presented by WR nebulae shows a loose correlation with the central star spectral type, implying that the nebular and stellar evolutions are not simple and may proceed according to different sequences and time-lapses. We report the discovery of an obscured shell around WR 35 only detected in the infrared.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据