4.7 Article

ON THE MASS-METALLICITY-STAR FORMATION RATE RELATION FOR GALAXIES AT z ∼ 2

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 808, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/808/1/25

关键词

galaxies: evolution; galaxies: fundamental parameters; galaxies: high-redshift

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent studies have shown that the local mass-metallicity (M-*-Z) relation depends on the specific star formation rate (sSFR). Whether such a dependence exists at higher redshifts, and whether the resulting M-*-Z-SFR relation is redshift invariant, is debated. We re-examine these issues by applying the non-parametric techniques of Salim et al. to similar to 130 z similar to 2.3 galaxies with N2 and O3 measurements from Keck Baryonic Structure Survey (KBSS). We find that the KBSS M-*-Z relation depends on sSFR at intermediate masses where such dependence exists locally. KBSS and SDSS galaxies of the same mass and sSFR (local analogs) are similarly offset in the BPT diagram relative to the bulk of local star-forming galaxies, and thus we posit that metallicities can be compared self-consistently at different redshifts as long as the masses and sSFRs of the galaxies are similar. We find that the M-*-Z-SFR relation of z similar to 2 galaxies is consistent with the local one at log M-* < 10, but is offset up to -0.25 dex at higher masses, so it is altogether not redshift invariant. This high-mass offset could arise from a bias that [O III]-based, high-redshift spectroscopic surveys have against high-metallicity galaxies, but additional evidence disfavors this possibility. We identify three causes for the reported discrepancy between N2 and O3N2 metallicities at z similar to 2: (1) a smaller offset that is also present for SDSS galaxies, which we remove with new N2 calibration, (2) a genuine offset due to differing ISM condition, which is also present in local analogs, and (3) an additional offset due to unrecognized active galactic nucleus contamination.

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

4.7
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