4.7 Article

Star formation rate indicators in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 599, 期 2, 页码 971-991

出版社

UNIV CHICAGO PRESS
DOI: 10.1086/379608

关键词

catalogs; galaxies : evolution; galaxies : starburst; radio continuum : galaxies; stars : formation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) first data release provides a database of approximate to106,000 unique galaxies in the main galaxy sample with measured spectra. A sample of star-forming ( SF) galaxies are identified from among the 3079 of these having 1.4 GHz luminosities from FIRST, by using optical spectral diagnostics. Using 1.4 GHz luminosities as a reference star formation rate (SFR) estimator insensitive to obscuration effects, the SFRs derived from the measured SDSS Halpha, [O II], and u-band luminosities, as well as far-infrared luminosities from IRAS, are compared. It is established that straightforward corrections for obscuration and aperture effects reliably bring the SDSS emission line and photometric SFR estimates into agreement with those at 1.4 GHz, although considerable scatter (approximate to60%) remains in the relations. It thus appears feasible to perform detailed investigations of star formation for large and varied samples of SF galaxies through the available spectroscopic and photometric measurements from the SDSS. We provide herein exact prescriptions for determining the SFR for SDSS galaxies. The expected strong correlation between [O II] and Halpha line fluxes for SF galaxies is seen, but with a median line flux ratio F-\O II\/F-Halpha = 0.23, about a factor of 2 smaller than that found in the sample of Kennicutt. This correlation, used in deriving the [O II] SFRs, is consistent with the luminosity-dependent relation found by Jansen and coworkers. The median obscuration for the SDSS SF systems is found to be A(Halpha) = 1.2 mag, while for the radio-detected sample the median obscuration is notably higher, 1.6 mag, and with a broader distribution.

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