4.6 Article

THE DUST ATTENUATION LAW IN DISTANT GALAXIES: EVIDENCE FOR VARIATION WITH SPECTRAL TYPE

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL LETTERS
卷 775, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/2041-8205/775/1/L16

关键词

dust, extinction; galaxies: stellar content

资金

  1. HST [HST-AR-12847.01-A]
  2. Alfred P. Sloan Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This Letter utilizes composite spectral energy distributions (SEDs) constructed from NEWFIRM Medium-Band Survey photometry to constrain the dust attenuation curve in 0.5 < z < 2.0 galaxies. Based on similarities between the full SED shapes (0.3-8 mu m), we have divided galaxies in 32 different spectral classes and stacked their photometry. As each class contains galaxies over a range in redshift, the resulting rest-frame SEDs are well sampled in wavelength and show various spectral features including H alpha and the UV dust bump at 2175 angstrom. We fit all composite SEDs with flexible stellar population synthesis models, while exploring attenuation curves with varying slopes and UV bump strengths. The Milky Way and Calzetti law provide poor fits at UV wavelengths for nearly all SEDs. Consistent with previous studies, we find that the best-fit attenuation law varies with spectral type. There is a strong correlation between the best-fit dust slope and UV bump strength, with steeper laws having stronger bumps. Moreover, the attenuation curve correlates with specific star formation rate (SFR), with more active galaxies having shallower dust curves and weaker bumps. There is also a weak correlation with inclination. The observed trends can be explained by differences in the dust-to-star geometry, a varying grain size distribution, or a combination of both. Our results have several implications for galaxy evolution studies. First, the assumption of a universal dust model leads to biases in derived galaxy properties. Second, the presence of a dust bump may result in underestimated values for the UV slope, used to correct SFRs of distant 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