1: \documentclass{emulateapj}
2: %\usepackage{emulateapj5}
3:
4: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
5:
6: %\usepackage{graphicx} \usepackage{apjfonts} \usepackage{mathptmx}
7: %\usepackage{eulergreek}
8:
9: \makeatletter \newenvironment{inlinetable}{% \def\@captype{table}%
10: \noindent\begin{minipage}{0.999\linewidth}\begin{center}\footnotesize}
11: {\end{center}\end{minipage}\smallskip}
12:
13: \newenvironment{inlinefigure}{% \def\@captype{figure}%
14: \noindent\begin{minipage}{0.999\linewidth}\begin{center}}
15: {\end{center}\end{minipage}\smallskip} \makeatother
16:
17: %\usepackage{timesexpert}
18:
19: \def\***#1{{\sc #1}} \def\plan#1{\relax} \def\Plan#1{\relax}
20: \def\PLAN#1{\relax}
21:
22: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
23:
24:
25: \newcommand{\gcc}{g~cm$^{-3}\ $} \newcommand{\sfun}[2]{$#1(#2)\ $}
26: \newcommand{\rhonot}{$\rho_{\circ}\ $} \newcommand{\msun}{$M_{\odot}\
27: $} \newcommand{\greq}{$\stackrel{>}{ _{\sim}}$}
28: \newcommand{\lteq}{$\stackrel{<}{ _{\sim}}$}
29: \def\lta{\mathrel{\spose{\lower 3pt\hbox{$\mathchar"218$}} \raise
30: 2.0pt\hbox{$\mathchar"13C$}}} \def\gta{\mathrel{\spose{\lower
31: 3pt\hbox{$\mathchar"218$}} \raise 2.0pt\hbox{$\mathchar"13E$}}}
32: \newcommand{\etal}{{\it et al.}} \newcommand{\eg}{{\it e.g.}}
33:
34: \shortauthors{Senorita Devi et al.}
35: \shorttitle{Extremely luminous X-ray point sources}
36:
37:
38:
39:
40: \def\mathnew{\mathsurround=0pt}
41:
42: \def\simov#1#2{\lower .5pt\vbox{\baselineskip0pt \lineskip-.5pt
43: \ialign{$\mathnew#1\hfil##\hfil$\crcr#2\crcr\sim\crcr}}}
44:
45: \def\simgreat{\mathrel{\mathpalette\simov >}}
46: \def\simless{\mathrel{\mathpalette\simov <}}
47:
48:
49: \begin{document}
50:
51: \title{The dependence of the estimated luminosities of ULX on spectral models }
52:
53:
54:
55: \author{A. Senorita Devi\altaffilmark{1}, R. Misra\altaffilmark{2}, V. K. Agrawal\altaffilmark{3} and K. Y. Singh\altaffilmark{1} }
56:
57: \altaffiltext{1}{Department Of Physics, Manipur University, Canchipur,
58: Imphal-795003, Manipur, India; senorita@iucaa.ernet.in}
59:
60: \altaffiltext{2}{Inter-University Center for Astronomy and
61: Astrophysics, Post Bag 4, Ganeshkhind, Pune-411007, India;
62: rmisra@iucaa.ernet.in}
63:
64: \altaffiltext{3}{Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics,
65: Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Homi Bhabha Road, Mumbai-400 005,India}
66:
67:
68:
69:
70: \begin{abstract}
71: Data from {\it Chandra} observations of thirty nearby
72: galaxies were analyzed and 365 X-ray point sources were
73: chosen whose spectra were not contaminated
74: by excessive diffuse emission and not affected
75: by photon pile up. The spectra of these sources
76: were fitted using two spectral models
77: (an absorbed power-law and a disk blackbody) to ascertain the
78: dependence of estimated parameters on the spectral model used. It was found
79: that the cumulative luminosity function depends on the choice of the
80: spectral model, especially for luminosities $> 10^{40}$ ergs/s.
81: In accordance with previous results, a large number ($\sim 80$) of the
82: sources have luminosities $> 10^{39}$ ergs/s (Ultra-Luminous X-ray
83: sources) with indistinguishable average
84: spectral parameters (inner disk temperature $\sim 1$ keV and/or photon
85: index $\Gamma \sim 2$) with those of the lower luminosities ones.
86: After considering foreground stars and known background AGN,
87: we identify four sources whose minimum luminosity
88: exceed $10^{40}$ ergs/s, and call them Extremely Luminous X-ray
89: sources (ELX). The spectra of these sources
90: are in general better represented by the disk black body model
91: than the power-law one. These ELX can be grouped into two distinct
92: spectral classes. Two of them have an inner disk temperature
93: of $< 0.5$ keV and hence are called ``supersoft'' ELX, while the other two
94: have temperatures $\gtrsim 1.3$ keV and are called
95: ``hard'' ELX. The estimated inner disk temperatures of the
96: supersoft ELX are compatible with the hypothesis that they
97: harbor intermediate size black holes, which are accreting
98: at $\sim 0.5$ times their Eddington Luminosity. The radiative
99: mechanism for hard ELX, seems to be Inverse Comptonization, which
100: in contrast to standard black holes systems, is probably saturated.
101: Extensive variability analysis of these ELX, will be able to distinguish
102: whether these two spectral class represent different systems or
103: they are spectral states of the same kind of source.
104:
105: \end{abstract}
106:
107: \keywords{Galaxies: general - X-rays: binaries}
108:
109: \section{Introduction}
110:
111: In the last few years, {\it Chandra} observations of nearby galaxies
112: have detected many non-nuclear X-ray point sources
113: \citep{Kaa01,Mat01,Zez02},
114: some of which
115: have isotropic luminosities $> 10^{39}$ ergs/s and are
116: called Ultra luminous X-ray Sources (ULX).
117: While some of these ULX are
118: supernova remnants \citep[e.g.][]{Ryd93,Fox00}, it
119: is believed that the majority of them are compact accreting systems.
120: Indeed, ASCA X-ray spectral studies of many ULX have revealed that they
121: display the characteristics of accreting black holes
122: \citep{Mak00,Miz01}.
123: ULX have also been called Super-Eddington
124: Sources \citep{Fab89,Fab04} and Intermediate luminosity X-ray
125: objects \citep{Rob00,Col99}.
126:
127:
128:
129: Since
130: these ULX sources emit radiation at a rate larger than the Eddington
131: luminosity for a ten-solar mass black hole, they are believed to
132: harbor a black hole of mass $10 \, M_\odot\! < \! M \! <\! 10^5
133: \,M_\odot$ \citep{Col99,Mak00}
134: where the upper limit
135: is constrained by the fact that a
136: more massive black hole would have settled into the nucleus due to
137: dynamical friction \citep{Kaa01}.
138: Black holes in this mass range are called
139: Intermediate Mass Black Holes (IMBH), since they
140: seem to represent the missing component of the black hole
141: mass spectrum with masses prevailing in the gap between those of
142: stellar mass black holes found in Galactic X-ray binaries and those associated
143: with Active Galactic Nuclei, $ M \sim 10^{6}-10^{9}$ $M_{\odot}$
144: \citep{Ric98}. \cite{Mil04} and \cite{Mil05} review the present evidence
145: for IMBH in ULX and \cite{Liu05} have compiled a catalogue of some ULX
146: and properties.
147:
148:
149: Alternate models for ULX are that their luminosities are
150: super-Eddington \citep{Beg02} or that their emission is
151: beamed from a geometrically thick accretion disk \citep{Kin01}.
152: However, it has been argued that in the latter case, such thick
153: "funnel" shaped disks enhance the observed flux by just a factor of
154: few \citep{Mis03}. For all of these models, the creation of such
155: sources \citep{Por02,Tan00,Mad01} and process by which they sustain
156: high accretion rates \citep{Kin01}, are largely unknown.
157:
158:
159: Investigations on the nature of ULX have been undertaken by studying
160: the spectra and variability of individual sources. For example
161: analysis of the spectra of NGC 1313 X-1, X-2 \citep{Mil03} and
162: M81 X-9 \citep{Mil04a}, revealed
163: the presence of a cool accretion disk component ($kT_{in} \sim 0.1-0.5 $ keV),
164: suggesting that ULX indeed harbor IMBH.
165: Transitions between two spectral states, similar to those seen in Galactic
166: black hole systems, have been reported in NGC 1313 X-1\citep{Col99}
167: and two sources in IC342 \citep{Kub01}. Spectral transitions have also
168: been reported in two sources in NGC 1313 \citep{Fen06}.
169:
170: The large collecting area of XMM-Newton,
171: allows for detailed spectral fits to ULX, which often comprise of two
172: components \citep{Wan04,Fen05}. However, \cite{Gon06}, have
173: argued that such soft spectral components depend on the complexity
174: of the fitting model. An interesting object is
175: the brightest X-ray point source in M 82, whose intrinsic luminosity
176: has been measured to be as high as 1.6 $\times$ 10$^{41}$ ergs/s
177: \citep{Pta99}. The detection of a $54$~mHz quasi-periodic oscillation
178: in its X-ray light curve
179: suggests that the source is a compact object
180: and not a background AGN \citep{Str03,Dew06a}. The spectra of this source can
181: be fitted by a power-law with photon index, $\Gamma \sim 2$ \citep{Fio04},
182: but is more consistently fitted with a flatter power-law with
183: an high energy cutoff around $\sim 6$ keV, which can be interpreted as
184: optically thick, saturated Comptonization \citep{Agr06}. A
185: quasi-periodic oscillation has also been discovered in the bright X-ray
186: source of Holmberg IX, which is similar to the source in M82 in having a
187: flat spectrum ($\Gamma \sim 1$) with a $\sim 9$ keV cutoff \citep{Dew06}.
188: Recently, \cite{Sto06} found that the XMM-Newton spectra of eleven of the
189: eighteen ULX studied by them, showed such high energy curvature. {\it Chandra}
190: observations of NGC 5204 X-1, also reveals the presence of an optically
191: thick Comptonized component \citep{Rob06}.
192: While these results of individual ULX are intriguing, there does not seem
193: to be any significantly distinguishable spectral property of ULX,
194: and in general
195: their spectra can be described either by steep or flat power-law indices,
196: with and without soft components \citep[e.g.][]{Dew05}.
197:
198: Another line of investigation is to construct the cumulative luminosity
199: function and histograms of spectral parameters of a large sample of
200: X-ray sources \citep[e.g.][]{Col02}.
201: The hope here is that, in case ULX are a distinct class
202: of sources and/or they can be classified into distinct subgroups,
203: the luminosity function should exhibit a break and their spectral parameters
204: should show clustering. \cite{Swa04} analyzed data from 82 galaxies and
205: estimated the luminosity function and spectral parameters of the X-ray
206: point sources in these galaxies. They found that the average photon
207: index (as well as the distribution) of the ULX and the less luminous
208: sources is nearly same. Moreover, their spatial
209: and variability distributions are also similar. While, their analysis
210: revealed that the luminosity functions of ULX depend on the host
211: galaxy type and star formation rate, they did not find any
212: significant evidence for breaks in them.
213:
214:
215: As emphasized by \cite{Swa04}, the power-law model they used to fit the
216: data was chosen as an empirical one. They attempted
217: to fit all the sources with the power-law model and only for those sources
218: that did not provide a reasonable fit, they used other models like disk
219: black body. They note that for many sources that are well
220: fitted by the power-law model, other spectral models can
221: also represent the spectra.
222: In this work, we consider a smaller sample of 30 galaxies
223: but fit the spectra of the points sources, with both a power-law
224: and a disk blackbody model. In principle, the intrinsic
225: (i.e. the absorption corrected) luminosity inferred
226: for a source may be different for the two spectral models. Our
227: first motivation here is to make a qualitative estimate of this difference by noting
228: the dependency of the luminosity function on the spectral model used.
229: A second motivation for this work is based on the expectation that estimations of a
230: different spectral parameter like the inner
231: disk temperature (as compared to the photon index), maybe better in
232: distinguishing ULX from other sources or they may reveal dependencies
233: (like correlations between luminosity and temperature)
234: which could shed light on the nature of these sources. As mentioned earlier,
235: the spectra of several ULX are complex requiring more than one components.
236: Thus, the two spectral models, an absorbed power-law and and an absorbed
237: disk blackbody, should be considered as empirical ones, which can adequately
238: represent low count data and these models need not be
239: the correct physical representation of the actual source spectrum.
240:
241:
242:
243:
244:
245:
246:
247: It is clear that ULX are fairly common in nearby galaxies. For example,
248: \cite{Swa04} identified 154 of them in 82 galaxies. If these sources are
249: Eddington limited, then black holes $\ga 10 M_\odot$ may indeed be
250: quite common.
251: However, only a few of these sources have luminosities greater than
252: $10^{40}$ ergs/s. It is these sources, (the best example being
253: the bright source in M82 X-1), that require black hole with masses,
254: $M \sim 10^{2-4} M_\odot$. The development of a self-consistent theory
255: which explains the process by which such black holes
256: are created and undergo high accretion, is theoretically challenging.
257: Hence, it is important to
258: estimate the number of sources
259: whose minimum intrinsic luminosity exceeds $10^{40}$ ergs/s. Here
260: the minimum value of the luminosity should not only include the
261: statistical spectral fitting error, but also the variations in
262: the luminosity estimation that may occur upon using
263: different viable spectral models. The third motivation of this work is
264: to identify such sources
265: which we call Extremely Luminous X-ray sources (ELX). To avoid
266: possible ambiguities in determining the luminosity, we have chosen only
267: those sources whose spectra
268: are not contaminated by excessive diffuse emission and which
269: are not affected by photon count pile up. Identification of such
270: relatively ``clean'' systems would allow for more detailed studies
271: of their properties to be undertaken and would be the
272: first step toward understanding their nature.
273:
274: A similar analysis has been undertaken recently
275: by \cite{Win06} for thirty galaxies observed by XMM-Newton. Since
276: their motivation was to check if ULX also exhibit soft and hard spectral
277: states like black hole binaries, they limited their analysis to bright sources
278: where detailed spectral analysis could be done. They found 16 sources as possible low-state
279: ULX and 26 as high state ones. For the high state ULX, the observed range for the black body
280: temperature was $0.1-1.0$ keV, with the more luminous sources having lower temperature.
281: The {\it Chandra} analysis undertaken here, can be compared with this contemporary work
282: and as we discuss later, the analysis are more or less consistent with each other. This
283: consistency is important, since although the larger collecting area of XMM-Newton,
284: allows for more complex spectral analysis, the higher angular resolution
285: of {\it Chandra} ensures that a source spectrum is not contaminated by diffuse emission
286: and flux from nearby sources.
287:
288:
289: \section{Observations and Data Reduction}
290:
291:
292: The names of the thirty host galaxies and the details of the
293: {\it Chandra} ACIS observations are tabulated in Table 1.
294: Distances to the galaxies were obtained
295: from \cite{Swa04} and references therein. This sample
296: of galaxies is a subset of those analyzed by \cite{Swa04}.
297: No particular criterion was imposed on the selection, since our motivation
298: is limited to obtaining enough sources and not to study dependency on
299: galaxy type.
300:
301:
302:
303:
304: %\clearpage
305: \begin{deluxetable*} {lcccr}
306: \tablewidth{40pc}
307: \tablecaption{Sample Galaxy properties}
308: \tablehead{
309: \colhead{Galaxy} & \colhead{Distance (Mpc)} & \colhead{ObsID} &
310: \colhead{$T_{exp}(ks)$} & \colhead{N($\ge 60cts$)}}
311: \startdata
312: NGC0253 & $2.6$ & $969$ & $13.98$ & $13$ \\
313: NGC0628 & $9.7$ & $2058$ &$46.16$ & $7$ \\
314: NGC0891 & $10.0$ & $794$ & $50.90$ & $14$ \\
315: NGC1291 & $8.9$ & $795$ & $39.16$ & $14$ \\
316: NGC1316 & $17.0$ & $2022$ & $29.85$ & $9$ \\
317: NGC1399 & $18.3$ & $319$ & $55.94$ & $36$ \\
318: NGC1569 & $2.2$ & $782$ & $96.75$ & $16$ \\
319: NGC2403 & $3.1$ & $2014$ &$35.59$ & $4$ \\
320: NGC3034 & $3.9$ & $361$ & $33.25$ & $5$ \\
321: NGC3079 &$15.6$ & $2038$ & $26.57$ & $5$ \\
322: NGC3379 & $11.1$ & $1587$ & $31.52$& $7$ \\
323: NGC3556 & $14.1$ & $2025$ & $59.36$ & $15$ \\
324: NGC3628 &$10.0$ & $2039$ & $57.96$ & $14$ \\
325: NGC4125 & $24.2$ & $2071$ & $64.23$ & $8$ \\
326: NGC4365 & $20.9$ & $2015$ & $40.42$ & $9$ \\ NGC4374
327: & $17.4$ & $803$ & $28.47$ & $4$ \\ NGC4449 & $3.7$ & $2031$ & $26.59$
328: & $12$ \\ NGC4485/90 & $7.8$ & $1579$ & $19.52$ & $9$ \\ NGC4559 &
329: $10.3$ & $2027$ & $10.70$ & $1$ \\ NGC4579 & $21.0$ & $807$ & $33.90$
330: & $3$ \\ NGC4594 & $9.6$ & $1586$ & $18.51$ & $18$ \\ NGC4631 & $7.6$
331: & $797$ & $59.21$ & $12$ \\ NGC4649 & $16.6$ & $785$ & $36.87$ & $23$
332: \\ NGC4697 & $11.8$ & $784$ & $39.25$ & $19$ \\ NGC5055 & $9.2$ &
333: $2197$ & $27.99$ & $16$ \\ NGC5128 & $4.0$ & $962$ & $36.50$ & $22$ \\
334: NGC5194/5 & $8.4$ & $1622$ & $26.80$ & $18$ \\ NGC5457 & $7.0$ &
335: $2065$ & $9.63$ & $4$ \\ NGC5775 & $26.7$ & $2940$ & $58.21$ & $15$ \\
336: NGC6946 & $5.5$ & $1043$ & $58.28$ & $16$ \\
337: \enddata
338: \tablecomments{($T_{exp}$)the exposure time in ks; (N) the number of
339: point sources with total counts from the source$\ge$ 60 as detected by
340: {\it{wavdetect}} with fluxscale$= 1$}
341: \end{deluxetable*}
342: %\clearpage
343:
344: The data reduction and analysis were done using CIAO3.2 and
345: HEASOFT6.0.2. Using the CIAO source detection tool {\it wavdetect},
346: X-ray point sources were extracted from the level 2 event list.
347: It was found that
348: at least 60 counts are required to fit the spectral data with a two parameter
349: model and hence only those
350: sources with net counts $ \ge 60$ were chosen for the spectral analysis.
351: Choosing a lower threshold of $50$ counts resulted in a large number of
352: sources for which spectral parameters could not be constrained.
353: To avoid photon pile up effects, a conservative threshold of
354: the count rate being $> 0.05$ counts/s was imposed which led to the
355: rejection of fifteen sources which have been listed in Table 3 of the appendix.
356: For some sources, typically near the
357: nucleus, it was difficult to find nearby source free background regions
358: and hence these sources were also not included in the analysis. Sources
359: embedded in excessive diffuse emission (i.e. when the background flux
360: was larger than $2$ counts/arcsec$^2$ ) were also rejected.
361: Typically, this amounted to considering only those sources
362: for which the estimated background counts were less than $20$.
363: For each data set, observation-specific bad pixel
364: lists were set in the {\it ardlib} parameter file. Using a combination
365: of CIAO tools and calibration data, the source and background spectra were
366: extracted.
367:
368: These selection criteria makes the sample incomplete both in
369: low and high luminosity ends. Thus the results obtained should not
370: be used for quantitative analysis of the luminosity functions. The motivation
371: here is evaluate dependency on spectral models and to identify
372: sources which have high intrinsic luminosity. Thus, care has been
373: taken to avoid possibly contaminated data, even if such criteria result
374: in a loss of sources.
375:
376: Spectral analysis was done using XSPEC version 12.2 and the data
377: was fitted in the energy range 0.3-8.0 keV. All sources were fitted
378: with two spectral models, the absorbed power-law and
379: an absorbed disk blackbody. Absorption was taken into account
380: using the XSPEC model {\it phabs}. Since the number of counts in
381: each spectrum was typically low, the C-statistics was used for the
382: analysis. Technically, the C-statistics is not appropriate for
383: high counts and/or for background subtracted data. However, it
384: was ascertained that the model parameters obtained either by C-statistics
385: or $\chi^2$ statistics, were consistent with each other for high count
386: rate sources. This is reassuring, because if the results depended on
387: the statistics used, it would be imperative to use the correct statistics
388: for high count sources (which need not be $\chi^2$)
389: taking into account the correct (possibly non-Gaussian) error profiles.
390:
391: An important problem, when fitting low count data with a two parameter
392: (plus normalization) model, is the possibility of many local minima
393: in the discerning statistic (in this case C-statistic) space. Hence,
394: we take a cautious approach and do not fit the data using the
395: XSPEC minimization
396: routine. Instead we compute the C-statistic for a range of parameter
397: values (using the XSPEC command {\it steppar}) and find the global
398: minimum. Such a technique is numerically expensive, but it ensures
399: that the global minimum has been found and the correct errors are
400: obtained for the best fit parameters.
401:
402:
403:
404:
405: \section{Results}
406:
407: The 365 sources considered in this analysis were classified into
408: three categories, depending on whether the data was better fit by the
409: disk black body model (23 sources) or the power-law one (67 sources) or
410: both (275 sources). The criterion
411: chosen to determine a better fit to the data was that C-statistic difference
412: between the models should be larger than 2.7. If the difference was less,
413: than both model fits were considered to equally represent the data. Although
414: such a criterion is ad hoc (considering the uncertainties in the actual
415: error statistics) and count rate dependent, it does serve as an qualitative
416: guideline
417: to differentiate between those systems which can be represented by
418: a power-law emission and/or a black body one. The spectral parameters
419: for all sources for the power-law and disk blackbody models are tabulated
420: in Tables 4 and 5 of the appendix.
421:
422: %\clearpage
423: \begin{figure}
424: \begin{center}
425: {\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth,angle=0]{f1_color.eps}}
426: \end{center}
427: \caption{The intrinsic luminosity (in $0.3$-$8.0$ keV energy range)
428: estimated by fitting the power-law model versus the bolometric
429: intrinsic luminosity estimated using the disk black body model.}
430: \end{figure}
431: %\clearpage
432: For ULX, the physically relevant parameter is the intrinsic bolometric
433: luminosity which should be used to define and identify them. However,
434: given the limitations of an instrument's energy sensitivity range, the
435: bolometric luminosity is spectral model dependent. For a power-law
436: the bolometric luminosity cannot be estimated and only a lower limit
437: can be obtained using the observed energy range. Since our motivation
438: is to show how the bolometric luminosity is affected by the use of
439: different spectral models, we have plotted in Figure 1, the bolometric luminosity
440: for the disk black body model versus the lower limit to the
441: luminosity using the power-law model. The figure represents only those sources which can be
442: represented by both models. The figure shows that while for most sources
443: the difference in luminosities is not substantial, there are sources
444: with estimated luminosities $ \gtrsim 10^{39}$ erg/s, where
445: the disk black body luminosity estimation is significantly smaller than
446: the power-law one. This happens for sources for which the spectral
447: index is large.
448:
449:
450: To show the dependence of the luminosity function on the fitting model,
451: we compute the cumulative luminosity function in two ways. For the disk
452: black body cumulative luminosity function (DBCLF), the
453: luminosity obtained form fitting
454: a black body is used, except for those sources that are fitted better with
455: a power-law for which the power-law model estimated luminosity is considered.
456: Similarly, for the power-law cumulative luminosity function, (PLCLF)
457: the luminosity corresponds to the power-law fit, except for those sources which
458: are better represented by a disk black body spectrum.
459: In Figure 2, the solid line represents the DBCLF while the
460: PLCLF is plotted as a dotted one. There are
461: less number of sources with $L > 10^{40}$ ergs/s for disk black body preferred
462: representation. Moreover, there is a significant difference in the slope of
463: the two luminosity function and the presence of a faint break at
464: $L \sim 10^{40}$ ergs/s for the PLCLF, is not evident in the DBCLF.
465: Of particular interest is the number of sources whose minimum luminosity
466: (i.e. the minimum of the two lower limits obtained by fitting the two
467: spectral models) exceeds a certain value. In Figure 2,
468: the dashed line represents such a minimum cumulative luminosity function,
469: which reveals that there are eight sources with minimum luminosity
470: greater $10^{40}$ ergs/s (ELX) and $\sim 80$ sources with
471: minimum luminosity
472: greater $10^{39}$ ergs/s (ULX).
473: %\clearpage
474: \begin{figure}
475: \begin{center}
476: {\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth,angle=0]{f2_color.eps}}
477: \end{center}
478: \caption{The cumulative luminosity function using the disk black body
479: model (solid line), the power-law model (dotted line) and the minimum
480: cumulative luminosity function (dashed line).}
481: \end{figure}
482:
483:
484:
485:
486: \begin{figure}
487: \begin{center}
488: {\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth,angle=0]{f3_color.eps}}
489: \end{center}
490: \caption{(a) The luminosity versus inner disk temperature and (b) the
491: distribution of the inner disk temperature for sources whose spectra can be
492: modeled as disk black body emission. The triangles represent
493: sources which are better fitted by the disk black body model as compared to
494: the power-law one. The two solid lines represent the expected luminosity
495: versus maximum temperature relations for accretion disks radiating at one
496: and one-tenth of the the Eddington Luminosity. Two sources which were
497: identified as foreground stars (see text) are not included in this plot. }
498: \end{figure}
499: %\clearpage
500:
501: Figures 3 (a) shows the variation of the luminosity versus
502: the disk black body temperature,
503: While most of the sources have an inner disk temperature
504: $\sim 1$ keV, as is evident from the distribution (Figure 3 b),
505: there is a population of high luminosity source with
506: low ($\sim 0.1$ keV) temperature. Although the number of sources is low,
507: there seems to be some evidence, that ELX (i.e. sources with luminosities
508: $> 10 ^{40}$ ergs/s ) can be divided in two groups, a ``super-soft'' group with temperature
509: less than $0.2$ keV and an harder group with temperature $\sim 2$ keV.
510: Figure 3 may be compared with the results obtained by \cite{Win06} using
511: XMM-Newton data for a different sample and selection criteria. They also
512: find that sources with luminosities $> 5 \times 10 ^{39}$ ergs/s have
513: have a similar bimodal distribution in temperature as shown in Figure 3.
514: This supports the hypothesis that ELX can be divided into two groups and
515: this is not an artifact of sample selection bias.
516:
517: %\clearpage
518: \begin{figure}
519: \begin{center}
520: {\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth,angle=0]{f4_color.eps}}
521: \end{center}
522: \caption{(a) The luminosity versus power-law index and (b) the
523: distribution of the power-law index for sources whose spectra can be
524: modeled as a power-law emission. The triangles represent
525: sources which are better fitted by the power-law model as compared to
526: the disk black body one. Two sources which were
527: identified as background AGN (see text) are not included in this plot.}
528: \end{figure}
529: %\clearpage
530: Figure 4 (a) shows the variation of luminosity with power-law photon index
531: for those sources which can be fitted by a power-law model. There is
532: a clear correlation between the two. This correlation does not seem to be due
533: to overestimation of column density, since no such correlation is seen
534: in the luminosity versus $N_H$ plot (Figure 5 b). Similar to the analysis
535: using the disk black body model, there is a group of ``super-soft'' sources
536: (i.e. photon spectral index $> 3$)
537: which are also highly luminous ($L > 10^{40}$
538: ergs/s).
539: The column density versus luminosity plots for both the power-law
540: and disk black body models (Figure 5),
541: reveal an absence of correlation, which is
542: indicative that there may not be a bias in the analysis, i.e. the luminosities
543: are not being over-estimated because of a $N_H$ overestimation.
544: %\clearpage
545: \begin{figure}
546: \begin{center}
547: {\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth,angle=0]{f5_color.eps}}
548: \end{center}
549: \caption{ The column density versus luminosity for sources fitted with
550: (a) the disk black body model and (b) the power-law model.}
551: \end{figure}
552: %\clearpage
553: In this analysis, there are eight sources which have an apparent
554: minimum luminosity
555: greater than $10^{40}$ ergs/s. However, two of these sources
556: (NGC 5055, R.A: 13 15 30.18, Dec: +42 03 13.5 and NGC 4594,
557: R.A: 12 39 45.22, Dec: -11 38 49.8) are foreground stars based on the
558: optical images of the galaxies. Optical spectroscopy of a source in NGC 5775
559: ( R.A: 14 53 55.8, Dec: +3 33 28.02) reveals that it is a background AGN
560: \citep{Gut05}, while a source in NGC 1399 ( R.A: 14 53 55.8, Dec: +3 33 28.02)
561: is a BLAGN \citep{Gre04}.
562: The spectral properties of the other four sources, which we call Extremely
563: Luminous sources (ELX) are tabulated in Table 2.
564: The NGC 0628 source reported in Table 2, is a different source than
565: the well studied ULX, CXOU J013651.1+154547. The luminosity of
566: this highly variable source \citep{Kra05} is $\sim 10^{39}$ ergs/s and
567: its spectral properties are listed in Table 4. The source in
568: NGC 6946 is a well known variable source \citep{Liu05} and has been
569: called X7 with $L \sim 10^{39.22}$ ergs/sec\citep{Lir00}, IXO 85 \citep{Col02} and source no. 56 \citep{Hol03}.
570: Although, the
571: best fit parameters for C-statistics are shown, these results
572: have been checked using $\chi^2$ statistics and by C-statistics fit for
573: unbinned and background not subtracted data and it was found that the
574: parameters values are consistent within errors and the errors on the
575: estimated luminosities do not vary by more than a factor two.
576: In general, these sources
577: are better represented by disk black body emission than a power-law model,
578: except for the source in NGC 6946, which however requires an exceptionally
579: large power-law photon spectral index, ($\Gamma > 5$).
580: The spectral properties of these bright sources suggest that they
581: may be divided into two groups. The first group of four sources
582: (Table 2), are represented by low inner disk temperatures ($< 0.5$ keV),
583: and hence may be called ``supersoft'' sources.
584: In contrast the second group of three sources, have harder spectra
585: with inner disk temperatures $\gtrsim 1$ keV or with power-law
586: photon index ($\Gamma \sim 2$) and hence may be called hard sources.
587: For this group, the spectra are marginally fitted better with
588: a disk blackbody emission, although considering the uncertainties in
589: the spectral fitting, a power-law representation may also be acceptable.
590:
591:
592:
593:
594:
595:
596:
597:
598: \begin{deluxetable*} {lcccccccccc}
599: %\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
600: %\rotate
601: \tablewidth{0pc}
602: \tablecaption{Spectral properties of sources with minimum luminosity $> 10^{40}$ergs/s }
603: \tablehead{
604: \colhead{galaxy} & \colhead{R.A.} & \colhead{Dec.} & \colhead{Counts} & \colhead{Bins} & \colhead{kT$_{in}$ (keV)}
605: & \colhead{log $L_{Dbb}$}& \colhead{C-stat$_{Dbb}$}& \colhead{$\Gamma$}& \colhead{log $L_{Pow}$}& \colhead{C-stat$_{Pow}$}}
606: \startdata
607:
608:
609:
610: NGC0628 & 01 36 47.45 & +15 47 45.01 &
611: $200$ &
612: $7$ &
613: $ 0.09^{+0.04}_{-0.03}$ &
614: $41.65^{+2.49}_{-1.60}$ &
615: $0.7$ &
616: $9.56^{+0.44}_{-2.42}$ &
617: $42.18^{+0.36}_{-1.49}$ &
618: $8.6$ \\
619:
620:
621:
622: NGC6946 & 20 35 0.13 & +60 9 7.97 &
623: $1936$ &
624: $66$ &
625: $ 0.32^{+0.02}_{-0.03}$ &
626: $39.46^{+0.08}_{-0.06}$ &
627: $162.2$ &
628: $ 5.14^{+0.34}_{-0.27}$ &
629: $40.41^{+0.21}_{-0.18}$ &
630: $134.8$ \\
631:
632: &&&&&&&&&&\\
633:
634: NGC4579 & 12 37 40.30 & +11 47 27.48 &
635: $1696$ &
636: $66$ &
637: $ 1.35^{+0.10}_{-0.09}$ &
638: $40.56^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$ &
639: $65.0$ &
640: $ 1.75^{+0.11}_{-0.11}$ &
641: $40.37^{+0.00}_{-0.02}$ &
642: $74.5$ \\
643:
644:
645: NGC5775 & 14 53 58.90 & + 3 32 16.78 &
646: $1358$ &
647: $60$ &
648: $ 1.97^{+0.29}_{-0.22}$ &
649: $41.11^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$ &
650: $55.8$ &
651: $ 1.86^{+0.22}_{-0.11}$ &
652: $40.95^{+0.10}_{-0.06}$ &
653: $60.1$ \\
654:
655:
656:
657:
658:
659:
660:
661: \tablecomments{Host Galaxy name; Right Ascension; Declination; Total counts; Number of energy bins after rebinning; Best fit inner disk temperature;
662: Bolometric luminosity estimate using disk black body model; C-statistic for
663: disk black body model; Photon index $\Gamma$ for the power-law model;
664: Luminosity estimate (0.3-8.0 keV) using the power-law model; C-statistic for
665: power-law model;}
666: \enddata
667: \end{deluxetable*}
668:
669:
670: \section{Summary and Discussion}
671:
672: Chandra observations of thirty galaxies were analyzed and the spectra
673: of their points sources were fitted using both a power-law and a
674: disk black body emission model. Only those sources were chosen, which were
675: bright enough to allow a meaningful spectral fit, but whose data
676: was not contaminated by excessive diffuse emission and/or effected
677: by pile-up. It was found that the shape of the luminosity function
678: especially at the high luminosity end, depends on the choice of the
679: spectral model.
680:
681: In accordance with earlier results, a large number of the sources
682: ($\sim 80$ ) have a luminosity which exceeds $10^{39}$ ergs/s and
683: hence satisfy the standard definition of being Ultra Luminous
684: X-ray sources (ULX) and do not seem to have any
685: spectral distinction when compared with
686: sources having lower luminosity. In this sample of 365 sources,
687: there are four source which we refer to as Extremely luminous X-ray sources
688: (ELX) since their luminosities were estimated to
689: exceed $10^{40}$ ergs/s. These sources are in general better described
690: by disk blackbody emission and can be distinctively grouped into two
691: classes. This is consistent with the results of an independent analysis using
692: XMM-Newton data \citep{Win06}. The members of the
693: first class have soft spectra with best fit inner disk temperature
694: $< 0.5$ keV, while for the other class the spectra is harder with
695: inner disk temperature $\gtrsim 1.3$ keV.
696:
697: If disk
698: black body emission is indeed the correct radiative process for
699: the supersoft class then the inner disk temperature should correspond
700: to the maximum color temperature of a disk, which can be
701: estimated to be
702: \begin{equation}
703: T_{col} \sim 0.3 \;\;\hbox {keV} \;\; L_{40}^{-1/4} (\frac{f}{1.7}) (\frac{L}{L_{Edd}})^{-1/2}
704: \end{equation}
705: where $L_{40}$ is the luminosity in $10^{40}$ ergs/s,
706: $f$ is the color factor and $L_{Edd}$ is the Eddington luminosity. In Figure
707: 3 (a), the two solid lines represent this relationship for
708: $L/L_{Edd} = 1$ and $0.1$. Thus within the uncertainties, the supersoft
709: sources are compatible with having pure black body disk emission, and
710: have $L \sim 0.5 L_{Edd}$.
711:
712: ELX which are members of the hard class
713: have inner disk temperatures which are
714: higher than that expected from a Eddington limited black body accretion disks.
715: Hence, for these source the radiative mechanism is probably inverse
716: Comptonization of soft photons. Detailed spectral analysis, which
717: included XMM observations, of the bright X-ray source in M82 X-1 has
718: revealed that its spectrum is better fitted by a saturated Comptonization
719: model \citep{Agr06}, which is also the case for the the bright X-ray source
720: in Holmberg IX. Holmberg IX is not part of the sample studied
721: here and
722: M82 X-1 has been excluded because of pile-up effects and
723: excess diffuse emission. Thus, these sources, with estimated luminosities $\sim 10^{41}$ erg/s,
724: could also be members
725: of the hard class of ELX. Thus it seems that like the
726: the hard state of standard black hole binaries, the
727: hard class ELX also
728: have spectra which is due to thermal Comptonization, however
729: unlike black hole binaries, in ELX the Comptonization seems to be saturated.
730: Thus, it is tempting to draw by analogy, that the two spectral classes of
731: ELX are actually two spectral states of the same kind of object. This
732: can be verified if spectral transition between the two classes is observed.
733:
734: With the identification of these ELX and other sources from the
735: literature, it is now possible to undertake a more extensive study
736: of their properties. Temporal variability of these sources will
737: shed more light on the nature of these enigmatic sources.
738:
739: \acknowledgements
740:
741: The authors thank the referee for useful comments and suggestions which have
742: significantly improved the paper. ASD thanks CSIR and IUCAA for support.
743:
744: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
745:
746: \bibitem[Agrawal \& Misra(2006)]{Agr06} Agrawal, V.~K., \&
747: Misra, R.\ 2006, \apjl, 638, L83
748:
749: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Begelman}{2002}]{Beg02}
750: Begelman, M. C., 2002, \apj, 568, L97.
751:
752: \bibitem[Colbert \& Mushotzky(1999)]{Col99} Colbert,
753: E.~J.~M., \& Mushotzky, R.~F.\ 1999, \apj, 519, 89
754:
755: \bibitem[Colbert \& Ptak(2002)]{Col02} Colbert, E.~J.~M., \&
756: Ptak, A.~F.\ 2002, \apjs, 143, 25
757:
758: \bibitem[Dewangan et al.(2006a)]{Dew06a} Dewangan, G.~C.,
759: Griffiths, R.~E., \& Rao, A.~R.\ 2006, \apjl, 641, L125
760:
761: \bibitem[Dewangan et al.(2006b)]{Dew06} Dewangan, G.~C.,
762: Titarchuk, L., \& Griffiths, R.~E.\ 2006, \apjl, 637, L21
763:
764: \bibitem[Dewangan et al.(2005)]{Dew05} Dewangan, G.~C.,
765: Griffiths, R.~E., Choudhury, M., Miyaji, T., \& Schurch, N.~J.\ 2005, \apj,
766: 635, 198
767:
768: \bibitem[Feng \& Kaaret(2006)]{Fen06} Feng, H., \& Kaaret,
769: P.\ 2006, \apjl, 650, L75
770:
771:
772: \bibitem[Feng \& Kaaret(2005)]{Fen05} Feng, H., \& Kaaret,
773: P.\ 2005, \apj, 633, 1052
774:
775: \bibitem[Fabbiano(1989)]{Fab89} Fabbiano, G.\ 1989, \araa,
776: 27, 87
777:
778: \bibitem[Fabbiano(2004)]{Fab04} Fabbiano, G.\ 2004, Revista
779: Mexicana de Astronomia y Astrofisica Conference Series, 20, 46
780:
781: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Fiorito \& Titarchuk}{2004}] {Fio04}
782: Fiorito, R. \& Titarchuk, L., 2004, \apj, 614, L113.
783:
784: \bibitem[Fox et al.(2000)]{Fox00} Fox, D.~W., et al.\ 2000,
785: \mnras, 319, 1154
786:
787: \bibitem[Green et al.(2004)]{Gre04} Green, P.~J., et al.\
788: 2004, \apjs, 150, 43
789:
790:
791:
792: \bibitem[Gon{\c c}alves \& Soria(2006)]{Gon06} Gon{\c
793: c}alves, A.~C., \& Soria, R.\ 2006, \mnras, 371, 673
794:
795: \bibitem[Guti{\'e}rrez \& L{\'o}pez-Corredoira(2005)]{Gut05}
796: Guti{\'e}rrez, C.~M., \& L{\'o}pez-Corredoira, M.\ 2005, \apjl, 622, L89
797:
798: \bibitem[Holt et al.(2003)]{Hol03} Holt, S.~S., Schlegel,
799: E.~M., Hwang, U., \& Petre, R.\ 2003, \apj, 588, 792
800:
801: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Kaaret \etal}{2001 }]{Kaa01}
802: Kaaret, P., \etal\ 2001, \mnras, 321, L29.
803:
804: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{King \etal}{2001}]{Kin01}
805: King, A. R. \etal\ 2001, \apj, 552, L109.
806:
807: \bibitem[Krauss et al.(2005)]{Kra05} Krauss, M.~I., Kilgard,
808: R.~E., Garcia, M.~R., Roberts, T.~P., \& Prestwich, A.~H.\ 2005, \apj, 630,
809: 228
810:
811: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Kubota \etal}{2001}]{Kub01}
812: Kubota, A., \etal, 2001, \apj, 547, L119.
813:
814: \bibitem[Lira et al.(2000)]{Lir00} Lira, P., Lawrence, A., \&
815: Johnson, R.~A.\ 2000, \mnras, 319, 17
816:
817: \bibitem[Liu \& Mirabel(2005)]{Liu05} Liu, Q.~Z., \& Mirabel,
818: I.~F.\ 2005, \aap, 429, 1125
819:
820: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Madau \& Rees}{2001}]{Mad01}
821: Madau, P., \& Rees, M. J., 2001, \apj, 551, L27.
822:
823: \bibitem[Makishima et al.(2000)]{Mak00} Makishima, K., et
824: al.\ 2000, \apj, 535, 632
825:
826: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Matsumoto \etal}{2001}]{Mat01}
827: Matsumoto, H., \etal\ 2001, \apj , 547, L25.
828:
829: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Miller \etal}{2003}]{Mil03}
830: Miller, J. M., Fabbiano, G., Miller, M. C., \& Fabian, A. C.,
831: 2003, \apjl, 585, L37.
832:
833: \bibitem[Miller \& Colbert(2004)]{Mil04} Miller, M.~C., \&
834: Colbert, E.~J.~M.\ 2004, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 13, 1
835:
836: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Miller, Fabian \& Miller}{2004}]{Mil04a}
837: Miller, J. M., Fabian, A. C., \& Miller, M. C., 2004, \apj, 607, 931.
838:
839: \bibitem[Miller(2005)]{Mil05} Miller, J.~M.\ 2005, \apss,
840: 300, 227
841:
842: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Misra \& Sriram}{2003}]{Mis03} Misra, R., \&
843: Sriram, K., 2003, \apj, 584, 981.
844:
845: \bibitem[Mizuno et al.(2001)]{Miz01} Mizuno, T., Kubota, A.,
846: \& Makishima, K.\ 2001, \apj, 554, 1282
847:
848: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Portegies, Zwart \& McMillian}{2002}]{Por02}
849: Portegies Zwart, S. F., \& McMillian, S. L. W., 2002, \apj, 576, 899.
850:
851: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Ptak and Griffiths}{1999}]{Pta99}
852: Ptak A., \& Griffiths R., 1999, \apj, 517, L85
853:
854: \bibitem[Richstone et al.(1998)]{Ric98} Richstone, D., et
855: al.\ 1998, \nat, 395, A14
856:
857: \bibitem[Roberts \& Warwick(2000)]{Rob00} Roberts, T.~P., \&
858: Warwick, R.~S.\ 2000, \mnras, 315, 98
859:
860:
861:
862: \bibitem[Roberts et al.(2006)]{Rob06} Roberts, T.~P.,
863: Kilgard, R.~E., Warwick, R.~S., Goad, M.~R., \& Ward, M.~J.\ 2006, \mnras,
864: 371, 1877
865:
866: \bibitem[Ryder et al.(1993)]{Ryd93} Ryder, S.,
867: Staveley-Smith, L., Dopita, M., Petre, R., Colbert, E., Malin, D., \&
868: Schlegel, E.\ 1993, \apj, 416, 167
869:
870: \bibitem[Stobbart et al.(2006)]{Sto06} Stobbart, A.-M.,
871: Roberts, T.~P., \& Wilms, J.\ 2006, \mnras, 368, 397
872:
873: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Strohmayer \& Mushotzky}{2003}]{Str03}
874: Strohmayer, T. E., \& Mushotzky, R. F., 2003, \apj, 586, L61.
875:
876: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Swartz \etal}{2004}]{Swa04}
877: Swartz, D. A., Ghosh, K. K., Tennant, A. F., Wu K. 2004, \apjs, 154, 519.
878:
879: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Taniguchi \etal}{2000}] {Tan00}
880: Taniguchi, Y., Shioya, Y., Tsuru, T. G. \& Ikeuchi, S., 2000,
881: PASJ, 52, 533.
882:
883:
884: \bibitem[Wang et al.(2004)]{Wan04} Wang, Q.~D., Yao, Y.,
885: Fukui, W., Zhang, S.~N., \& Williams, R.\ 2004, \apj, 609, 113
886:
887: \bibitem[Winter et al.(2006)]{Win06} Winter, L.~M.,
888: Mushotzky, R.~F., \& Reynolds, C.~S.\ 2006, \apj, 649, 730
889:
890: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Zezas \& Fabbiano}{2002}]{Zez02}
891: Zezas, A., \& Fabbiano, G., \apj, 577, 726.
892:
893: \end{thebibliography}
894: %\clearpage
895: \begin{appendix}
896:
897: \begin{deluxetable*}{lccr}
898: \tablewidth{0pc} \tablecaption{List of sources with count rate greater than $0.05$ counts/s} \tablehead{
899: \colhead{Galaxy} & \colhead{R.A.} & \colhead{Dec.} &
900: \colhead{Count rate s$^{-1}$} } \startdata
901: NGC0253 & 0 47 32.97 & -25 17 48.80 & 0.0845164 \\
902: NGC0253 & 0 47 22.59 & -25 20 50.87 & 0.0657110 \\
903: NGC0253 & 0 47 17.55 & -25 18 11.18 & 0.0569807 \\
904: NGC1569 & 4 31 16.85 & +64 49 50.13 & 0.0567468 \\
905: NGC2403 & 7 36 55.61 & +65 35 40.85 & 0.0746877 \\
906: NGC2403 & 7 36 25.53 & +65 35 40.02 & 0.1521207 \\
907: NGC3628 & 11 20 15.75 & +13 35 13.70 & 0.0530390 \\
908: NGC4374 & 12 25 11.92 & +12 51 53.53 & 0.0563400 \\
909: NGC4449 & 12 28 17.83 & +44 6 33.86 & 0.0525013 \\
910: NGC4485 & 12 30 43.26 & +41 38 18.36 & 0.0509909 \\
911: NGC4485 & 12 30 30.56 & +41 41 42.33 & 0.0758634 \\
912: NGC4559 & 12 35 58.56 & +27 57 41.91 & 0.1233310 \\
913: NGC4559 & 12 35 51.71 & +27 56 4.05 & 0.1984267 \\
914: NGC4631 & 12 41 55.56 & +32 32 16.90 & 0.0554584 \\
915: NGC6946 & 20 35 0.74 & +60 11 30.74 & 0.1448118 \\
916: \enddata
917: \tablecomments{The spectra of these sources would be affected by pile-up and hence have not
918: been included in the sample }
919:
920: \end{deluxetable*}
921:
922:
923:
924:
925:
926:
927: %\LongTables
928: \begin{deluxetable} {lccccccr}
929: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
930: \tablewidth{0pc}
931: \tablecaption{
932: Spectral Properties of point sources fitted with the Power-Law model}
933: \tablehead{
934: \colhead{Galaxy} & \colhead{R.A.} & \colhead{Decl.} & \colhead{$n_H$($10^{22}cm^{-2}$)} & \colhead{$\Gamma$} & \colhead{log(L) ergs/s} & \colhead{C$_{stat}$} & \colhead{d. o. f.}}
935: \startdata
936: NGC0253 & 0 47 43.07 & -25 15 29.28 & $ 0.15^{+ 0.53}_{- 0.15}$ & $ 2.52^{+2.31}_{-1.21}$ & $37.70^{+1.20}_{-0.18}$ & $ 9.43$ & $ 4$ \\
937: NGC0253 & 0 47 42.80 & -25 15 2.02 & $ 0.77^{+ 0.51}_{- 0.49}$ & $ 1.86^{+0.66}_{-0.77}$ & $38.26^{+0.27}_{-0.12}$ & $ 3.36$ & $ 4$ \\
938: NGC0253 & 0 47 35.25 & -25 15 11.53 & $ 0.48^{+ 0.05}_{- 0.13}$ & $ 2.19^{+0.22}_{-0.33}$ & $38.65^{+0.05}_{-0.08}$ & $ 38.94$ & $ 19$ \\
939: NGC0253 & 0 47 34.28 & -25 17 3.32 & $ 5.66^{+ 5.98}_{- 5.66}$ & $ 5.38^{+4.62}_{-4.95}$ & $40.82^{+3.28}_{-2.90}$ & $ 3.21$ & $ 2$ \\
940: NGC0253 & 0 47 34.00 & -25 16 36.51 & $ 1.04^{+ 0.11}_{- 0.10}$ & $ 2.19^{+0.22}_{-0.22}$ & $39.01^{+0.08}_{-0.07}$ & $ 10.93$ & $ 27$ \\
941: NGC0253 & 0 47 33.55 & -25 18 16.51 & $ 0.00^{+ 0.18}_{- 0.00}$ & $ 1.64^{+0.99}_{-0.44}$ & $37.33^{+0.15}_{-0.10}$ & $ 2.37$ & $ 2$ \\
942: NGC0253 & 0 47 32.05 & -25 17 21.43 & $ 3.17^{+ 2.20}_{- 2.46}$ & $ 1.97^{+1.10}_{-1.10}$ & $38.61^{+0.72}_{-0.32}$ & $ 1.63$ & $ 3$ \\
943: NGC0253 & 0 47 30.98 & -25 18 26.23 & $ 1.55^{+ 1.46}_{- 1.55}$ & $ 1.75^{+1.21}_{-1.21}$ & $38.24^{+0.65}_{-0.21}$ & $ 1.76$ & $ 3$ \\
944: NGC0253 & 0 47 28.01 & -25 18 20.21 & $ 0.93^{+ 1.13}_{- 0.92}$ & $ 2.08^{+1.76}_{-1.54}$ & $38.02^{+1.03}_{-0.23}$ & $ 2.13$ & $ 1$ \\
945: NGC0253 & 0 47 25.20 & -25 19 45.22 & $ 0.00^{+ 0.15}_{- 0.00}$ & $ 1.31^{+0.66}_{-0.22}$ & $37.96^{+0.09}_{-0.09}$ & $ 5.10$ & $ 4$ \\
946: NGC0253 & 0 47 18.50 & -25 19 13.94 & $ 0.00^{+ 0.15}_{- 0.00}$ & $ 1.31^{+0.44}_{-0.22}$ & $37.97^{+0.07}_{-0.05}$ & $ 3.94$ & $ 5$ \\
947: NGC0253 & 0 47 40.66 & -25 14 11.71 & $ 0.69^{+ 0.72}_{- 0.56}$ & $ 2.41^{+1.98}_{-1.32}$ & $37.96^{+1.11}_{-0.27}$ & $ 1.07$ & $ 3$ \\
948: NGC0253 & 0 47 17.65 & -25 18 26.45 & $ 0.11^{+ 0.49}_{- 0.11}$ & $ 1.31^{+1.54}_{-0.77}$ & $38.12^{+0.27}_{-0.12}$ & $ 3.13$ & $ 3$ \\
949: NGC0628 & 1 36 51.06 & +15 45 46.86 & $ 0.03^{+ 0.05}_{- 0.03}$ & $ 1.86^{+0.22}_{-0.11}$ & $39.22^{+0.04}_{-0.02}$ & $ 50.58$ & $ 36$ \\
950: NGC0628 & 1 36 47.45 & +15 47 45.01 & $ 0.89^{+ 0.11}_{- 0.33}$ & $ 9.56^{+0.44}_{-2.42}$ & $42.18^{+0.36}_{-1.49}$ & $ 8.56$ & $ 4$ \\
951: . . . . & . . . . . & & & & & & \\
952: \enddata
953: \tablecomments{Host galaxy name; Right Ascension; Declination; $n_H$, equivalent hydrogen column density; $\Gamma$, photon power-law index; L, X-ray luminosity in the energy range: 0.3-8.0 keV; C-statistics; degree of freedom.
954: The complete version of this table is in the electronic edition of
955: the Journal. The printed edition contains only a sample. }
956:
957: \end{deluxetable}
958:
959: %\LongTables
960: \begin{deluxetable} {lccccccr}
961: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
962: \tablewidth{0pc}
963: \tablecaption{Spectral Properties of point sources fitted with the disk black body model}
964: \tablehead{
965: \colhead{Galaxy} & \colhead{R.A.} & \colhead{Decl.} & \colhead{$n_H$($10^{22}cm^{-2}$)} & \colhead{kT$_{in}$ (keV)} & \colhead{log(L) ergs/s} & \colhead{C$_{stat}$} & \colhead{d. o. f.}}
966: \startdata
967: NGC0253 & 0 47 43.07 & -25 15 29.28 & $ 0.00^{+ 0.32}_{-0.00}$ & $ 0.59^{+0.42}_{-0.25}$ & $37.69^{+0.37}_{-0.00}$ & $ 9.41$ & $ 4$ \\
968: NGC0253 & 0 47 42.80 & -25 15 2.02 & $ 0.44^{+ 0.36}_{-0.32}$ & $ 1.56^{+1.95}_{-0.52}$ & $38.40^{+0.26}_{-0.08}$ & $ 3.95$ & $ 4$ \\
969: NGC0253 & 0 47 35.25 & -25 15 11.53 & $ 0.24^{+ 0.07}_{-0.07}$ & $ 1.04^{+0.21}_{-0.15}$ & $38.71^{+0.04}_{-0.03}$ & $ 35.79$ & $ 19$ \\
970: NGC0253 & 0 47 34.28 & -25 17 3.32 & $ 3.08^{+ 5.36}_{-3.07}$ & $ 0.62^{+9.38}_{-0.36}$ & $38.69^{+2.04}_{-0.60}$ & $ 3.37$ & $ 2$ \\
971: NGC0253 & 0 47 34.00 & -25 16 36.51 & $ 0.64^{+ 0.12}_{-0.10}$ & $ 1.34^{+0.19}_{-0.16}$ & $39.06^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$ & $ 8.60$ & $ 27$ \\
972: NGC0253 & 0 47 33.55 & -25 18 16.51 & $ 0.00^{+ 0.08}_{-0.00}$ & $ 0.86^{+0.69}_{-0.29}$ & $37.49^{+0.20}_{-0.06}$ & $ 3.85$ & $ 2$ \\
973: NGC0253 & 0 47 32.05 & -25 17 21.43 & $ 2.04^{+ 1.82}_{-1.62}$ & $ 2.07^{+4.71}_{-0.80}$ & $38.68^{+0.40}_{-0.09}$ & $ 1.37$ & $ 3$ \\
974: NGC0253 & 0 47 30.98 & -25 18 26.23 & $ 0.96^{+ 0.96}_{-0.86}$ & $ 2.00^{+8.00}_{-0.91}$ & $38.41^{+0.73}_{-0.12}$ & $ 1.84$ & $ 3$ \\
975: NGC0253 & 0 47 28.01 & -25 18 20.21 & $ 0.62^{+ 0.77}_{-0.56}$ & $ 1.20^{+8.80}_{-0.55}$ & $38.08^{+0.90}_{-0.12}$ & $ 2.51$ & $ 1$ \\
976: NGC0253 & 0 47 25.20 & -25 19 45.22 & $ 0.00^{+ 0.06}_{-0.00}$ & $ 1.20^{+0.86}_{-0.33}$ & $38.12^{+0.21}_{-0.09}$ & $ 7.71$ & $ 4$ \\
977: NGC0253 & 0 47 18.50 & -25 19 13.94 & $ 0.00^{+ 0.05}_{-0.00}$ & $ 1.59^{+0.73}_{-0.41}$ & $38.22^{+0.15}_{-0.09}$ & $ 6.36$ & $ 5$ \\
978: NGC0253 & 0 47 40.66 & -25 14 11.71 & $ 0.42^{+ 0.47}_{-0.38}$ & $ 0.90^{+2.76}_{-0.40}$ & $37.94^{+0.38}_{-0.18}$ & $ 1.64$ & $ 3$ \\
979: NGC0253 & 0 47 17.65 & -25 18 26.45 & $ 0.08^{+ 0.32}_{-0.07}$ & $ 1.24^{+8.76}_{-0.65}$ & $38.23^{+1.04}_{-0.13}$ & $ 2.85$ & $ 3$ \\
980: NGC0628 & 1 36 51.06 & +15 45 46.86 & $ 0.00^{+ 0.00}_{-0.00}$ & $ 0.89^{+0.08}_{-0.11}$ & $39.42^{+0.02}_{-0.04}$ & $119.44$ & $ 36$ \\
981: NGC0628 & 1 36 47.45 & +15 47 45.01 & $ 0.75^{+ 0.58}_{-0.39}$ & $ 0.09^{+0.04}_{-0.03}$ & $41.65^{+2.49}_{-1.60}$ & $ 0.66$ & $ 4$ \\
982: . . . . & . . . . . & & & & & & \\
983: \enddata
984: \tablecomments{Host galaxy name; Right Ascension; Declination; $n_H$, equivalent hydrogen column density; $kT_{in}$, inner disk temperature; L, Bolometric X-ray luminosity; C-statistics; degree of freedom.
985: The complete version of this table is in the electronic edition of
986: the Journal. The printed edition contains only a sample. }
987:
988: \end{deluxetable}
989:
990:
991: %\setlength{\hoffset}{-15mm}
992: %\input{tab4}
993:
994: %\input{tab5}
995:
996:
997: %\clearpage
998:
999: \end{appendix}
1000: \end{document}
1001: