Are you E. Riccardelli?

Claim your profile

Publications (1)5.23 Total impact

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We empirically test the relation between the SFR(LIR) derived from the infrared luminosity, LIR, and the SFR(Ha) derived from the Ha emission line luminosity using simple conversion relations. We use a sample of 474 galaxies at z = 0.06 - 0.46 with both Ha detection (from 20k zCOSMOS survey) and new far-IR Herschel data (100 and 160 {\mu}m). We derive SFR(Ha) from the Ha extinction corrected emission line luminosity. We find a very clear trend between E(B - V) and LIR that allows to estimate extinction values for each galaxy even if the Ha emission line measurement is not reliable. We calculate the LIR by integrating from 8 up to 1000 {\mu}m the SED that is best fitting our data. We compare SFR(Ha) with the SFR(LIR). We find a very good agreement between the two SFR estimates, with a slope of m = 1.01 \pm 0.03 in the SFR(LIR) vs SFR(Ha) diagram, a normalization constant of a = -0.08 \pm 0.03 and a dispersion of sigma = 0.28 dex.We study the effect of some intrinsic properties of the galaxies in the SFR(LIR)-SFR(Ha) relation, such as the redshift, the mass, the SSFR or the metallicity. The metallicity is the parameter that affects most the SFR comparison. The mean ratio of the two SFR estimators log[SFR(LIR)/SFR(Ha)] varies by approx. 0.6 dex from metal-poor to metal-rich galaxies (8.1 < log(O/H) + 12 < 9.2). This effect is consistent with the prediction of a theoretical model for the dust evolution in spiral galaxies. Considering different morphological types, we find a very good agreement between the two SFR indicators for the Sa, Sb and Sc morphologically classified galaxies, both in slope and normalization. For the Sd, irregular sample (Sd/Irr), the formal best-fit slope becomes much steeper (m = 1.62 \pm 0.43), but it is still consistent with 1 at the 1.5 sigma level, because of the reduced statistics of this sub-sample.
    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 05/2012; 426(1). DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21710.x · 5.23 Impact Factor