Dust emissivity and absorption cross section in DustPedia late-type galaxies
S. Bianchi, V. Casasola, M. Baes, C. J. R. Clark, E. Corbelli, J., I.Davies, I. De Looze, P. De Vis, W. Dobbels, M. Galametz, F. Galliano, A. P., Jones, S. C. Madden, L. Magrini, A. Mosenkov, A. Nersesian, S. Viaene, E. M., Xilouris, N. Ysard

TL;DR
This study compares dust emission properties in DustPedia galaxies with Milky Way cirrus to assess the validity of using Galactic dust properties for external galaxies, revealing similarities and variations linked to galaxy type and metallicity.
Contribution
It provides a comparative analysis of dust emissivity and absorption cross sections in external galaxies versus the Milky Way, highlighting potential underestimations of dust mass when using Galactic standards.
Findings
Dust emissivity at 250 micrometres is similar in galaxies and the Milky Way for certain color ratios.
Dust emission properties vary with galaxy type, metallicity, and molecular gas fraction.
Using Milky Way dust properties may underestimate dust masses in external galaxies by up to a factor of two.
Abstract
Aims: We compare the far-infrared to sub-millimetre dust emission properties measured in high Galactic latitude cirrus with those determined in a sample of 204 late-type DustPedia galaxies. The aim is to verify if it is appropriate to use Milky Way dust properties to derive dust masses in external galaxies. Methods: We used Herschel observations and atomic and molecular gas masses to estimate the disc-averaged dust emissivity at 250 micrometres, and from this, the absorption cross section per H atom and per dust mass. The emissivity requires one assumption, which is the CO-to-H_2 conversion factor, and the dust temperature is additionally required for the absorption cross section per H atom; yet another constraint on the dust-to-hydrogen ratio D/H, depending on metallicity, is required for the absorption cross section dust mass. Results: We find epsilon(250) = 0.82 +/- 0.07 MJy sr^-1…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
