Abstract

We present results from ALMA 1.2mm continuum observations of a sample of 27 star-forming galaxies at z=2.1-2.5 from the MOSFIRE Deep Evolution Field (MOSDEF) survey. These galaxies have gas-phase metallicity and star-formation rate measurements from Hb, [OIII], Ha, and [NII]. Using stacks of Spitzer, Herschel, and ALMA photometry (rest-frame ~ 8-400μμm), we examine the IR SED of high-redshift subsolar metallicity (~0.5 Z⊙Z_{\odot}) LIRGs. We find that the data agree well with an average SED template of higher luminosity local low-metallicity dwarf galaxies (reduced χ2χ^2 of 1.8). When compared with the commonly used templates for solar-metallicity local galaxies or high-redshift LIRGs and ULIRGs, even in the most favorable case (with reduced χ2χ^2 of 2.8), the templates are rejected at >98% confidence level. The broader and hotter IR SED of both the local dwarfs and high-redshift subsolar metallicity galaxies may result from different grain properties, a clumpy dust geometry, or a harder/more intense ionizing radiation field that heats the dust to higher temperatures. The obscured SFR indicated by the FIR emission of the subsolar metallicity galaxies is only ~ 60% of the total SFR, which is considerably lower than that of the local LIRGs with ~ 96-97% obscured fractions. Due to the evolving IR SED shape, the local LIRG templates fit to mid-IR data can overestimate the Rayleigh-Jeans tail measurements at z~2 by a factor of 2-20, and these templates underestimate IR luminosities if fit to the observed ALMA fluxes by >0.4dex. At a given stellar mass or metallicity, dust masses at z~2.3 are an order of magnitude higher than those at z~0. Given the predicted molecular gas mass fractions, the observed z~2.3 dust-to-stellar mass ratios suggest lower dust-to-molecular gas masses than in local galaxies at the same metallicity.

Explore this paper’s authors, topics and related work.

Building this map preview

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

Reviews 0

Write a reviewWrite

No reviews yet.

Discussion 0

Add a commentWrite

No comments yet.