4.7 Article

Cosmic evolution of mass accretion rate and metallicity in active galactic nuclei

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 654, 期 2, 页码 754-763

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1086/509650

关键词

galaxies : abundances; galaxies : active; galaxies : nuclei; galaxies : starburst; quasars : emission lines

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present line and continuum measurements for 9818 SDSS type 1 active galactic nuclei (AGNs) with z <= 0.75. The data are used to study the four-dimensional space of black hole mass, normalized accretion rate (L/L-Edd), metallicity, and redshift. The main results are ( 1) L/L-Edd is smaller for larger mass black holes at all redshifts. ( 2) For a given black hole mass, L/L-Edd proportional to z(gamma) or (1 + z)(delta), where the slope gamma increases with black hole mass. The mean slope is similar to the star formation rate slope over the same redshift interval. ( 3) The Fe II/ H beta line ratio is significantly correlated with L/L-Edd. It also shows a weaker negative dependence on redshift. Combined with the known dependence of metallicity on accretion rate, we suggest that the Fe II/ H beta line ratio is a metallicity indicator. ( 4) Given the measured accretion rates, the growth times of most AGNs exceed the age of the universe. This suggests past episodes of faster growth for all those sources. Combined with the Fe II/ H beta result, we conclude that the broad emission line metallicity goes through cycles and is not a monotonously decreasing function of redshift. ( 5) FWHM([O III] lambda 5007) is a poor proxy for sigma(*), especially for high L/L-Edd. ( 6) We define a group of narrow-line type 1 AGNs ( NLAGN1s) by their luminosity- ( or mass-) dependent H beta line width. Such objects have L/ L-Edd >= 0.25, and they comprise 8% of the type 1 population. Other interesting results include negative Baldwin relationships for EW(H beta) and EW(Fe II) and a relative increase of the red part of the H beta line with luminosity.

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