4.6 Article

The mid-infrared emission of seyfert galaxies:: A new analysis of isocam data

期刊

ASTRONOMICAL JOURNAL
卷 134, 期 5, 页码 2006-2019

出版社

UNIV CHICAGO PRESS
DOI: 10.1086/522625

关键词

galaxies : active; galaxies : nuclei; galaxies : Seyfert; infrared : galaxies

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present mid- infrared data of a sample of 57 AGNs obtained with the instrument ISOCAM on board the Infrared Space Observatory (ISO) satellite. The images were obtained through the LW2 (6.75 mu m) and LW7(9.62 mu m) filters. This is a new analysis of the Clavel et al. galaxy sample, which is divided into 26 type 1 (<= 1.5) and 28 type 2 (>1.5) Seyfert galaxies, plus three QSOs. The spatial resolution of the images allows us to separate the nuclear and the extended contributions to the total emission after decomposing the brightness profiles into different morphological components. The most common components are a central point source (identified as the active nucleus) and an exponential disk. In some cases a bulge, a bar, or a ring are needed. The relative contribution of the nucleus to the total emission appears larger in Seyfert 1 than in Seyfert 2 types. This result confirms that both types of Seyfert galaxies are different in the mid- infrared wavelength range and supports the existence of a structure which produces anisotropic emission in thiswavelength range. We have also explored correlations between the mid-infrared and the radio and X-ray wavelength ranges. The well-established radio/infrared correlation is maintained in our sample for the global emission of the galaxies. If only the nuclear infrared emission is considered, then a nonlinear correlation is apparent in the luminosity-luminosity scatter diagram. The ratio between the intrinsic hard X-ray and the nuclear mid- infrared emission presents large scatter and slightly larger values for type 2 Seyfert galaxies. These results seemto be consistent with the presence of a clumpy dusty torus surrounding the active nucleus.

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

4.6
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