Paper detail

GOODS-Herschel A population of 24micron dropout sources at z < 2

Using extremely deep PACS 100- and 160um Herschel data from the GOODS-Herschel program, we identify 21 infrared bright galaxies previously missed in the deepest 24um surveys performed by MIPS. These MIPS dropouts are predominantly found in two redshift bins, centred at z ~0.4 and ~1.3. Their S_100/S_24 flux density ratios are similar to those of local LIRGs and ULIRGs, whose silicate absorption features at 18um (at z ~ 0.4) and 9.7um (at z ~ 1.3) are shifted into the 24um MIPS band at these redshifts. The high-z sub-sample consists of 11 infrared luminous sources, accounting for ~2% of the whole GOODS-Herschel sample and putting strong upper limits on the fraction of LIRGs/ULIRGs at 1.0<z<1.7 that are missed by the 24um surveys. We find that a S_100/S_24 > 43 colour cut selects galaxies with a redshift distribution similar to that of the MIPS dropouts and when combined with a second colour cut, S_16/S_8 > 4, isolates sources at 1.0 < z < 1.7. We show that these sources have elevated specific star formation rates (sSFR) compared to main sequence galaxies at these redshifts and are likely to be compact starbursts with moderate/strong 9.7um silicate absorption features in their mid-IR spectra. Herschel data reveal that their infrared luminosities extrapolated from the 24um flux density are underestimated, on average, by a factor of ~3. These silicate break galaxies account for 16% (8%) of the ULIRG (LIRG) population in the GOODS fields, indicating a lower limit in their space density of 2.0 \times 10^(-5) Mpc^(-3). Finally, we provide estimates of the fraction of z < 2 MIPS dropout sources as a function of the 24-, 100-, 160-, 250- and 350um sensitivity limits, and conclude that previous predictions of a population of silicate break galaxies missed by the major 24um extragalactic surveys have been overestimated.

preprint2011arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access28 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.