4.6 Article

Detection of neutral hydrogen in early-type dwarf galaxies of the Sculptor group

期刊

ASTRONOMICAL JOURNAL
卷 130, 期 5, 页码 2058-2064

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1086/496977

关键词

galaxies : clusters : individual (Sculptor); galaxies : dwarf; galaxies : evolution; galaxies : ISM

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present results of deep 21 cm neutral hydrogen ( H I) line observations of five early- and mixed-type dwarf galaxies in the nearby Sculptor group using the Australia Telescope National Facility 64 m Parkes Radio Telescope. Four of these objects, ESO 294- G010, 410- G005, 540- G030, and 540- G032, were detected in H I with neutral hydrogen masses in the range (2 - 9) x 10(5) M-. (M-H I /L-B = 0.08, 0.13, 0.16, and 0.18 M-. L-.(-1), respectively). These H I masses are consistent with the gas mass expected from stellar outflows over a large period of time. Higher spatial resolution H I data from the Australia Telescope Compact Array interferometer were further analyzed to measure more accurate positions and the distribution of the H I gas. In the cases of the dwarfs ESO 294- G010 and ESO 540-G030, we find significant offsets of 290 and 460 pc, respectively, between the position of the H I peak flux and the center of the stellar component. These offsets are likely to have internal causes such as the winds from star-forming regions. The fifth object, the spatially isolated dwarf elliptical galaxy Scl-dE1, remains undetected at our 3 sigma limit of 22.5 mJy km s(-1) and thus must contain less than 10(5) M-. of neutral hydrogen. This leaves Scl-dE1 as the only Sculptor group galaxy known in which no interstellar medium has been found to date. The object joins a list of similar systems, including the Local Group dwarfs Tucana and Cetus, that do not fit into the global picture of the morphology-density relation in which gas-rich dwarf irregular galaxies are in relative isolation and gas-deficient dwarf elliptical galaxies are satellites of more luminous galaxies.

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