4.7 Article

[C II] 158 μm LUMINOSITIES AND STAR FORMATION RATE IN DUSTY STARBURSTS AND ACTIVE GALACTIC NUCLEI

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 755, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/755/2/171

关键词

galaxies: active; galaxies: distances and redshifts; galaxies: starburst; infrared: galaxies

资金

  1. BMVIT (Austria)
  2. ESA-PRODEX (Belgium)
  3. CEA/CNES (France)
  4. DLR (Germany)
  5. ASI/INAF (Italy)
  6. CICYT/MCYT (Spain)
  7. NASA
  8. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [En 176/36-1]
  9. Marie Curie Intra-European Fellowship within the 7th European Community Framework Program [272820]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Results are presented for [C II] 158 mu m line fluxes observed with the Herschel PACS instrument in 112 sources with both starburst and active galactic nucleus (AGN) classifications, of which 102 sources have confident detections. Results are compared with mid-infrared spectra from the Spitzer Infrared Spectrometer and with L-ir from IRAS fluxes; AGN/starburst classifications are determined from equivalent width of the 6.2 mu m polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) feature. It is found that the [CII] line flux correlates closely with the flux of the 11.3 mu m PAH feature independent of AGN/starburst classification, log [f([C II] 158 mu m)/f(11.3 mu m PAH)] = -0.22 +/- 0.25. It is concluded that the [CII] line flux measures the photodissociation region associated with starbursts in the same fashion as the PAH feature. A calibration of star formation rate (SFR) for the starburst component in any source having [C II] is derived comparing [C II] luminosity L([C II]) to L-ir with the result that log SFR = log L([C II)]) -7.08 +/- 0.3, for SFR in M-circle dot yr(-1) and L([C II]) in L-circle dot. The decreasing ratio of L([C II]) to L-ir in more luminous sources (the [C II] deficit) is shown to be a consequence of the dominant contribution to L-ir arising from a luminous AGN component because the sources with the largest L-ir and smallest L([C II])/L-ir are AGNs.

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