Paper detail

Quantifying Feedback from Narrow Line Region Outflows in Nearby Active Galaxies. IV. The Effects of Different Density Estimates on the Ionized Gas Masses and Outflow Rates

Active galactic nuclei (AGN) can launch outflows of ionized gas that may influence galaxy evolution, and quantifying their full impact requires spatially resolved measurements of the gas masses, velocities, and radial extents. We previously reported these quantities for the ionized narrow-line region (NLR) outflows in six low-redshift AGN, where the gas velocities and extents were determined from Hubble Space Telescope long-slit spectroscopy. However, calculating the gas masses required multi-component photoionization models to account for radial variations in the gas densities, which span $\sim$6 orders of magnitude. In order to simplify this method for larger samples with less spectral coverage, we compare these gas masses with those calculated from techniques in the literature. First, we use a recombination equation with three different estimates for the radial density profiles. These include constant densities, those derived from [S II], and power-law profiles based on constant values of the ionization parameter ($U$). Second, we use single-component photoionization models with power-law density profiles based on constant $U$, and allow $U$ to vary with radius based on the [O III]/H$β$ ratios. We find that assuming a constant density of $n_\mathrm{H} =$ 10$^2$ cm$^{-3}$ overestimates the gas masses for all six outflows, particularly at small radii where the outflow rates peak. The use of [S II] marginally matches the total gas masses, but also overestimates at small radii. Overall, single-component photoionization models where $U$ varies with radius are able to best match the gas mass and outflow rate profiles when there are insufficient emission lines to construct detailed models.

preprint2022arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

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 graph slice

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.