4.7 Article

A Chandra survey of early-type galaxies.: I.: Metal enrichment in the interstellar medium

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 639, 期 1, 页码 136-156

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1086/499323

关键词

galaxies : abundances; galaxies : elliptical and lenticular, cD; galaxies : halos; galaxies : ISM; X-rays : galaxies

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present a Chandra study of the emission-weighted metal abundances in 28 early-type galaxies, spanning similar to 3 orders of magnitude in X-ray luminosity (L-X). We report constraints for Fe, O, Ne, Mg, Si, S, and Ni. We find no evidence of the very subsolar Fe abundance (Z(Fe)) historically reported, confirming a trend in recent observations of bright galaxies and groups, nor do we find any correlation between ZFe and luminosity. Excepting one case, the ISM is single-phase, indicating that multitemperature fits found with ASCA reflected temperature gradients that we resolve with Chandra. We find no evidence that ZFe ( ISM) is substantially lower than the stellar metallicity estimated from simple stellar population models. In general, these quantities are similar, which is inconsistent with galactic wind models and recent hierarchical chemical enrichment simulations. Our abundance ratio constraints imply that 66% +/- 11% of the ISM Fe was produced in SNe Ia, similar to the solar neighborhood, indicating similar enrichment histories for elliptical galaxies and the Milky Way. Although these values are sensitive to the considerable systematic uncertainty in the supernova yields, they are in agreement with observations of more massive systems. This indicates considerable homology in the enrichment process operating from cluster scales to low-tointermediate-L-X galaxies. The data uniformly exhibit low Z(O)/Z(Mg) ratios, which have been reported in some clusters, groups, and galaxies. This is inconsistent with standard SN II metal yield calculations and may indicate an additional source of enrichment, such as Population III hypernovae.

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