4.7 Article

INTERSTELLAR AND EJECTA DUST IN THE CAS A SUPERNOVA REMNANT

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 786, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/786/1/55

关键词

dust,extinction; infrared: ISM; ISM: individual objects: (Cassiopeia A); ISM: supernova remnants

资金

  1. NASA [NNH09ZDA001N-ADP-0032]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Infrared continuum observations provide a means of investigating the physical composition of the dust in the ejecta and swept up medium of the Cas A supernova remnant (SNR). Using low-resolution Spitzer IRS spectra (5-35 mu m), and broad-band Herschel PACS imaging (70, 100, and 160 mu m), we identify characteristic dust spectra, associated with ejecta layers that underwent distinct nuclear burning histories. The most luminous spectrum exhibits strong emission features at similar to 9 and 21 mu m and is closely associated with ejecta knots with strong Ar emission lines. The dust features can be reproduced by magnesium silicate grains with relatively low Mg to Si ratios. Another dust spectrum is associated with ejecta having strong Ne emission lines. It has no indication of any silicate features and is best fit by Al2O3 dust. A third characteristic dust spectrum shows features that are best matched by magnesium silicates with a relatively high Mg to Si ratio. This dust is primarily associated with the X-ray-emitting shocked ejecta, but it is also evident in regions where shocked interstellar or circumstellar material is expected. However, the identification of dust composition is not unique, and each spectrum includes an additional featureless dust component of unknown composition. Colder dust of indeterminate composition is associated with emission from the interior of the SNR, where the reverse shock has not yet swept up and heated the ejecta. Most of the dust mass in Cas A is associated with this unidentified cold component, which is less than or similar to 0.1M(circle dot). The mass of warmer dust is only similar to 0.04M(circle dot).

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