4.7 Article

The oxygen abundances of luminous and ultraluminous infrared galaxies

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 674, 期 1, 页码 172-193

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1086/522363

关键词

galaxies : abundances; galaxies : evolution; galaxies : interactions; galaxies : ISM; galaxies : kinematics and dynamics; infrared : galaxies

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Luminous and ultraluminous infrared galaxies (LIRGs and ULIRGs) dominate the star formation rate budget of the universe at z greater than or similar to 1, yet no local measurements of their heavy-element abundances exist. We measure nuclear or near-nuclear oxygen abundances in a sample of 100 star-forming LIRGs and ULIRGs using new, previously published, and archival spectroscopy of strong emission lines (including [O II] lambda lambda 3726, 3729) in galaxies with redshifts < z > similar to 0.1. When compared to local emission-line galaxies of similar luminosity and mass (using the near-infrared luminosity-metallicity and mass-metallicity relations), we find that LIRGs and ULIRGs are underabundant by a factor of 2 on average. As a corollary, LIRGs and ULIRGs also have smaller effective yields. We conclude that the observed under-abundance results from the combination of a decrease of abundance with increasing radius in the progenitor galaxies and strong, interaction- or merger-induced gas inflow into the galaxy nucleus. This conclusion demonstrates that local abundance scaling relations are not universal, a fact that must be accounted for when interpreting abundances earlier in the universe's history, when merger-induced star formation was the dominant mode. We use our local sample to compare to high-redshift samples and assess abundance evolution in LIRGs and ULIRGs. We find that abundances in these systems increased by similar to 0.2 dex from z similar to 0.6 to z similar to 0.1. Evolution from z similar to 2 submillimeter galaxies to z similar to 0.1ULIRGs also appears to be present, although uncertainty due to spectroscopic limitations is large.

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