4.7 Article

THE CHANDRA LOCAL VOLUME SURVEY: THE X-RAY POINT-SOURCE CATALOG OF NGC 300

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 758, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/758/1/15

关键词

galaxies: individual: NGC 300; galaxies: spiral; X-rays: binaries; X-rays: galaxies

资金

  1. National Aeronautics and Space Administration [G01-12118X]
  2. Chandra X-ray Observatory Center
  3. National Aeronautics Space Administration [NAS8-03060]
  4. NASA [NAS8-03060]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present the source catalog of a new Chandra ACIS-I observation of NGC 300 obtained as part of the Chandra Local Volume Survey. Our 63 ks exposure covers similar to 88% of the D-25 isophote (R approximate to 6.3 kpc) and yields a catalog of 95 X-ray point sources detected at high significance to a limiting unabsorbed 0.35-8 keV luminosity of similar to 10(36) erg s(-1). Sources were cross-correlated with a previous XMM-Newton catalog, and we find 75 X-ray transient candidate sources that were detected by one observatory, but not the other. We derive an X-ray scale length of 1.7 +/- 0.2 kpc and a recent star formation rate of 0.12 M-circle dot yr (1) in excellent agreement with optical observations. Deep, multi-color imaging from the Hubble Space Telescope, covering similar to 32% of our Chandra field, was used to search for optical counterparts to the X-ray sources, and we have developed a new source classification scheme to determine which sources are likely X-ray binaries, supernova remnants, and background active galactic nucleus candidates. Finally, we present the X-ray luminosity functions (XLFs) at different X-ray energies, and we find the total NGC 300 X-ray point-source population to be consistent with other late-type galaxies hosting young stellar populations (less than or similar to 50 Myr). We find that XLF of sources associated with older stellar populations has a steeper slope than the XLF of X-ray sources coinciding with young stellar populations, consistent with theoretical predictions.

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