Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-ph5wq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T11:52:58.843Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The dust distribution in late-type low surface brightness disks

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 August 2012

John MacLachlan
Affiliation:
School of Physics and Astronomy, University of St Andrews, North Haugh, St Andrews, Fife, KY16 9SS, Scotland email: jmm55@st-andrews.ac.uk
Lynn Matthews
Affiliation:
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60 Garden Street, MS-42, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA
Kenny Wood
Affiliation:
School of Physics and Astronomy, University of St Andrews, North Haugh, St Andrews, Fife, KY16 9SS, Scotland email: jmm55@st-andrews.ac.uk
Jay Gallagher
Affiliation:
Department of Astronomy, University of Wisconsin, 475 N. Charter Street, Madison, WI, 53706, USA
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Late-type low surface brightness (LSB) disk galaxies are common in the local universe and appear dynamically and chemically under evolved compared to their high surface brightness (HSB) counterparts. We have utilized multi-wavelength imaging and photometry of three edge-on, low-mass LSB disk galaxies to investigate the dust distribution in such systems. Through the use of Monte Carlo radiation transfer models to interpret the data, we find that the dust disk appears to have a vertical scale height similar to the stellar disk. This is in contrast to previous findings from HSB galaxies, where the dust is believed to be more concentrated in the galactic mid-plane. We believe the change in the relative scale heights of the dust and stellar disks is likely associated with the increased stability of the ISM against vertical collapse and the thin nature of the stellar disks.

Type
Contributed Papers
Copyright
Copyright © International Astronomical Union 2012

References

Dalcanton, J. J., Yoachim, P., & Bernstein, R. A. 2004, ApJ, 608, 189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Blok, W. J. G. & Bosma, A. 2002, A&A, 385, 816Google Scholar
Kotulla, R., Fritze, U., Weilbacher, P., Anders, P. & the galev team. 2009, MNRAS, 396, 462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, L. D., Gao, Y., Uson, J. M., & Combes, F. 2005, ApJ, 129, 1849CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popescu, C. C. & Tuffs, R. J. 2003, A&A, 410, L21.Google Scholar
van der Hulst, J. M., Skillman, E. D., Smith, T. R., et al. 1993, AJ, 106, 548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, K., Whitney, B. A., Robitaille, T., & Draine, B. T. 2008, ApJ, 688, 1118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xilouris, E. M., Byun, Y. I., Kylafis, N. D., Paleologou, E. V., & Papamastorakis, J. 1999, A&A, 344, 868Google Scholar