4.6 Article

Dusty nuclear disks and filaments in early-type galaxies

期刊

ASTRONOMICAL JOURNAL
卷 121, 期 6, 页码 2928-2942

出版社

UNIV CHICAGO PRESS
DOI: 10.1086/321072

关键词

dust, extinction; galaxies : elliptical and lenticular, cD; galaxies : ISM

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We examine the dust properties of a nearby distance-limited sample of early-type galaxies using WFPC2 of the Hubble Space Telescope. Dust is detected in 29 out of 67 galaxies (43%), including 12 with small nuclear dusty disks. In a separate sample of 40 galaxies biased for the detection of dust by virtue of their detection in IRAS 100 mum band, dust is found in similar to 78% of the galaxies, 15 of which contain dusty disks. In those galaxies with detectable dust, the apparent mass of the dust correlates with radio and far-infrared luminosity, becoming more significant for systems with filamentary dust. A majority of IRAS and radio detections are also associated with dusty galaxies rather than dustless galaxies. This indicates that thermal emission from clumpy, filamentary dust is the main source of the far-IR radiation in early-type galaxies. Dust in small disklike morphology tends to be well aligned with the major axis of the host galaxies, while filamentary dust appears to be more randomly distributed with no preference for alignment with any major galactic structure. This suggests that, if the dusty disks and filaments have a common origin, the dust originates externally and requires time to dynamically relax and settle in the galaxy potential in the form of compact disks. More galaxies with visible dust than without dust display emission lines, indicative of ionized gas, although such nuclear activity does not show a preference for dusty disk over filamentary dust. There appears to be a weak relationship between the mass of the dusty disks and central velocity dispersion of the galaxy, suggesting a connection with a similar recently recognized relationship between the latter and the black hole mass.

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