Paper detail

The Dust Attenuation Curve versus Stellar Mass for Emission Line Galaxies at z ~ 2

We derive the mean wavelength dependence of stellar attenuation in a sample of 239 high redshift (1.90 < z < 2.35) galaxies selected via Hubble Space Telescope (HST) WFC3 IR grism observations of their rest-frame optical emission lines. Our analysis indicates that the average reddening law follows a form similar to that derived by Calzetti et al. for local starburst galaxies. However, over the mass range 7.2 < log M/Msolar < 10.2, the slope of the attenuation law in the UV is shallower than that seen locally, and the UV slope steepens as the mass increases. These trends are in qualitative agreement with Kriek & Conroy, who found that the wavelength dependence of attenuation varies with galaxy spectral type. However, we find no evidence of an extinction "bump" at 2175 A in any of the three stellar mass bins, or in the sample as a whole. We quantify the relation between the attenuation curve and stellar mass and discuss its implications.

preprint2015arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access11 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.