4.6 Article

100 μm and 160 μm emission as resolved star-formation rate estimators in M33 (HERM33ES)

期刊

ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS
卷 518, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

EDP SCIENCES S A
DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/201014649

关键词

galaxies: individual: M33; galaxies: spiral; infrared: galaxies; galaxies: star formation

资金

  1. STFC [ST/H001913/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  2. Science and Technology Facilities Council [ST/H001913/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Context. Over the past few years several studies have provided estimates of the SFR (star-formation rate) or the total infrared luminosity from just one infrared band. However these relations are generally derived for entire galaxies, which are known to contain a large scale diffuse emission that is not necessarily related to the latest star-formation episode. Aims. We provide new relations to estimate the SFR from resolved star-forming regions at 100 mu m and 160 mu m. Methods. We select individual star-forming regions in the nearby (840 kpc) galaxy M33. We estimate the SFR combining the emission in H alpha and at 24 mu m to calibrate the emission at 100 mu m and 160 mu m as SFR estimators, as mapped with PACS/Herschel. The data are obtained in the framework of the HERM33ES open time key program. Results. There is less emission in the HII regions at 160 mu m than at 100 mu m. Over a dynamic range of almost 2 dex in Sigma(SFR) we find that the 100 mu m emission is a nearly linear estimator of the SFR, whereas that at 160 mu m is slightly superlinear. Conclusions. The behaviour of individual star-forming regions is surprisingly similar to that of entire galaxies. At high Sigma(SFR), star formation drives the dust temperature, whereas uncertainties and variations in radiation-transfer and dust-heated processes dominate at low Sigma(SFR). Detailed modelling of both galaxies and individual star forming regions will be needed to interpret similarities and differences between the two and assess the fraction of diffuse emission in 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