1: \documentclass{emulateapj}

2: %\usepackage{psfig}

3: \usepackage{apjfonts}

4: 

5: %\received{} 

6: %\revised{}

7: %\accepted{}

8: 

9: \shorttitle{PKS~2155-304}

10: \shortauthors{Fang et al.}

11: 

12: %\topmargin=0.5in

13: 

14: %%%%% apj5 emulate stuff %%%%%

15: %\marginparwidth 1.25in

16: %\marginparsep .125in

17: %\marginparpush .25in

18: %\reversemarginpar

19: \makeatletter

20: \newenvironment{tablehere}

21:   {\def\@captype{table}}

22:   {}

23: \newenvironment{figurehere}

24:   {\def\@captype{figure}}

25:   {}

26: %\makeatother

27: %%%%% apj5 emulate stuff %%%%%

28: 

29: \begin{document}

30: 

31: \title{Confirming the Detection of an Intergalactic X-ray Absorber

32:   Toward PKS~2155-304} 

33: 

34: \author{Taotao~Fang\altaffilmark{1},

35:         Claude~R.~Canizares\altaffilmark{2}, Yangsen~Yao\altaffilmark{2}}

36: 

37: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of California,

38:         Irvine, CA 92697, fangt@uci.edu; {\sl Chandra} Fellow}

39: \altaffiltext{2}{Department of Physics and Center for Space Research,

40:         MIT,  77 Mass. Ave., Cambridge, MA 02139} 

41: 

42: \begin{abstract}

43: 

44: We present new observations on PKS 2155-304 with the {\sl Chandra} Low

45: Energy Transmission Grating Spectrometer (LETG), using the Advanced

46: CCD Imaging Spectrometer (ACIS). We confirm the detection of an

47: absorption line plausibly identified as \ion{O}{8} Ly$\alpha$ from the warm-hot intergalactic medium associated with a small group of

48: galaxies along the line of sight, as originally reported by Fang et

49: al.~2002 (here after FANG02). Combining the previous observations in

50: FANG02 and five new, long observations on the same target, we increase

51: the total exposure time by a factor of three, and the total counts per

52: resolution element by a factor of five. The measured line equivalent

53: width is smaller than that observed in FANG02, but still consistent at

54: 90\% confidence. We also analyze the {\sl XMM}-Newton observations on

55: the same target, as well as observations using the {\sl Chandra} LETG

56: and the High Resolution Camera (HRC) combination. These observations

57: have been used to challenge our reported detection. While no line is

58: seen in either the {\sl XMM}-Newton and the {\sl Chandra} LETG+HRC

59: data, we find that our result is consistent with the upper limits from

60: both data sets. We attribute the non-detection to (1) higher quality

61: of the {\sl Chandra} LETG+ACIS spectrum, and (2) the rather extended

62: wings of the line spread functions of both the {\sl XMM}  RGS and the

63: {\sl Chandra} LETG+HRC. We discuss the implication of our observation

64: on the temperature and density of the absorber. We also confirm the

65: detection of $z\sim 0$ \ion{O}{7} absorption and, comparing with

66: previous {\sl Chandra} analysis, we obtain much tighter constraints on

67: the line properties.

68: 

69: \end{abstract}

70: 

71: \keywords{intergalactic medium --- quasars: absorption lines ---

72:    X-rays: galaxies --- large-scale structure of universe ---

73:    methods: data analysis}

74: 

75: \section{Introduction}

76: 

77: Cosmological hydrodynamic simulations predict that a large amount of

78: baryons in the local universe reside in the intergalactic medium (IGM)

79: (see, e.g., Cen \& Ostriker~1999; Dave et al.~2001; Kravtsov et al.~2002; Cen \&

80: Ostriker~2006). While the warm

81: and photo-ionized Ly$\alpha$ clouds contain a significant

82: fraction of the total baryons (see, e.g., Morris et al.~1991; Bahcall et al.~1991;Stocke et al.~1995;Shull et al.~1996;Penton et

83: al.~2000; Williger et al.~2006;Lehner et al.~2007), the

84: remainder is shock-heated to temperatures between $10^5$

85: -- $10^7$ K with moderate overdensities. Highly ionized

86: metals in this Warm-Hot Intergalactic Medium, or ``WHIM'', can produce

87: detectable absorption signatures in the UV/X-ray spectra of background sources,

88: just as the cooler IGM imprints the Ly$\alpha$ forest (see, e.g.,

89: Perna \& Loeb~1998;

90: Hellsten~1998; Fang, Bryan, \& Canizares~2002; Chen et al.~2002; Viel

91: et al.~2003; Fujimoto et al.~2004; Furlanetto et al.2005; Cen \& Fang ~2006;Kawahara et al.~2006). Detectability of the WHIM gas through emission is also under investigation (see,

92: e.g., Croft et al.~2001; Phillips et al.~2001; Kuntz \& Snowden et al.~2001;

93: Zappacosta et al.~2002, 2005,2007; Yoshikawa et al.~2003, 2004;

94: Kaastra~2004; Mittaz et al.~2004; Slotan et al.~2005;Fang et al.~2005; Ursino \&

95: Galeazzi~2006;Cen \& Fang~2006; Takei et al.~2007a,2007b; Mannucci et al.~2007). 

96: 

97: Recent detections of the UV absorption lines with the STIS onboard the

98: {\sl Hubble} Space Telescope and the Far Ultraviolet Spectrometer

99: ({\sl FUSE}) have firmly revealed the existence of the WHIM gas at

100: temperatures between $10^5$ -- $10^{5.5}$ K (see, e.g., Savage et

101: al.~1998; Tripp et

102: al.~2000; Oegerle et al.~2000; Sembach et al.~2004; Tumlinson et

103: al.~2005; Danforth \& Shull~2005; Stocke et al.~2006). The \ion{O}{6}

104: doublet at 1032 and 1039 \AA\, can be used to probe the 

105: temperatures, densities and redshifts of that component of the

106: intervening WHIM gas. Recently, a population of intervening broad HI

107: Ly$\alpha$ absorbers (BLAs) have also been detected in the far-UV band,

108: stirring interests in probing WHIM with BLAs (see. e.g., Richter et

109: al.~2005; 2006). The contribution of both BLAs and \ion{O}{6} absorbers to the baryonic density are $\Omega_b(\rm BLA) \geq 0.0027$ (Richter et al.~2005) and $\Omega_b(\rm O VI) \sim 0.0022$ (see, e.g., Danforth \& Shull~2005), respectively, assuming a Hubble constant of $\rm 70\ km\ s^{-1}Mpc^{-1}$. However, as simulations suggest, about only one third of the WHIM gas can be detected in the UV band --- with higher temperatures the remaining two thirds can only be revealed in the

110: X-ray (see, e.g., Fang, Bryan, \& Canizares~2002; Chen et al.~2002;

111: Viel et al.~2003; Cen \& Fang~2006; Cen \& Ostriker~2006).

112: 

113: Several lines of evidence indicate that the narrow X-ray absorption

114: lines from the WHIM gas may be detected with high resolution

115: spectrometers onboard {\sl Chandra} and {\sl XMM}-Newton. A number of

116: $z \approx 0$ absorption lines were detected in the spectra of

117: background AGNs with {\sl Chandra} and

118: {\sl XMM}-Newton (Nicastro et al.~2002; Fang, Sembach, \& Canizares~2003;

119: Rasmussen et al.~2003; Kaspi et al.~2002;McKernan et al.~2004,2005;

120: Cagnoni et al.~2004; Williams et al.~2005, 2006a, 2006b). However, current instrumental resolution cannot

121: distinguish between Galactic and the Local Group origin of the

122: absorbing gas. While a number of studies proposed these absorption

123: lines are produced by the intragroup medium in the Local Group (see,

124: e.g.,  Nicastro et al.~2002; Williams et al.~2005, 2006a,2006b), other

125: evidence suggests a Galactic-origin of this hot gas (Wang et al.~2005;

126: Yao \& Wang~2005; Fang et al.~2006; Yao \& Wang

127: ~2007; Bregman \& Lloyd-Davies~2007). 

128: 

129: Fang et al.~(2002, hereafter FANG02) reported the first detection

130: of an intervening X-ray absorber at $z = 0.0554$ along the sightline

131: toward PKS~2155-304, using the {\sl Chandra} LETGS. At the same

132: redshift a small group of galaxies had been detected by Shull et

133: al.~(1998), who subsequently reported the detection of \ion{O}{6}

134: (Shull et al.~2003). Subsequent observations with {\sl XMM}-Newton did not

135: detect the \ion{O}{8} absorption, setting a 3$\sigma$ upper limit

136: equivalent width (EW) of $\sim 14$ m\AA\, compared to our reported EW

137: of $14.0^{+7.3}_{-5.6}$ m\AA\ (Cagnoni et al.~2004). Several

138: \ion{O}{7} and \ion{O}{8} absorption lines were detected along the

139: sightline toward H~1821+621 (Mathur et al.~2003),  although the

140: statistics is low and the detections are at 2 -- 3$\sigma$

141: level. Mckernan et al.~(2003) claimed detection of an intervening

142: absorption system at $z \approx 0.0147$ toward 3C~120 at $\gtrsim

143: 3\sigma$ level, although they cannot rule out the possibility that

144: this system is intrinsic to the jet of 3C~120. Recently, during an

145: extremely bright state of Mkn~421, Nicastro et al.~(2005) detected two

146: intervening absorption systems ($z>0$) with high significance. However, observations with the {\sl XMM}-Newton cannot

147: confirm the detections, and the consistency between the {\sl Chandra}

148: and {\sl XMM}-Newton was investigated (Ravasio et al.~2005; Williams et al.~2006c; Kasstra

149: et al.~2007; Rasmussen et al.~2007).   

150:  

151: In this paper, we confirm detection of the intervening absorber toward PKS~2155-304 using new observations to reexamine the results from FANG02. PKS~2155-304 has been used repeatedly as a

152: {\sl Chandra} and {\sl XMM}-Newton calibration target because it is

153: one of the brightest extragalactic soft X-ray sources, and also

154: because of its relatively simple spectrum shape. Since we published

155: FANG02, five more {\sl Chandra} observations with the same

156: instrumental configuration (LETG+ACIS) were conducted, which more than

157: triples the total exposure time that was reported in FANG02. The

158: increase in the number of detected photons (by a factor of $\sim 5$)

159: improves the statistics of the spectrum significantly. We also analyze

160: the {\sl XMM}-Newton observations on the same target, as well as

161: observations using the {\sl Chandra} LETG+HRC combination. These

162: observations have been used to challenge our reported detection. 

163: 

164: \section{Data Analysis}

165: 

166: At $z = 0.112$, PKS~2155-304

167: ($\alpha=21^h58^m52.1^s,\,\delta=-30\arcdeg13\arcmin32.1\arcsec$) is

168: one of the brightest extragalactic X-ray sources. This source has been

169: chosen to calibrate various instruments onboard {\sl Chandra} and so

170: is observed repeatedly. For our

171: purpose, we choose observations that have been conducted with the Low

172: Energy Transmission Gratings (LETG) and ACIS-S as the focal plane

173: detector \footnote{For LETG and ACIS-S, see http://asc.harvard.edu}, to be consistent with FANG02. In section \S4, we will discuss results from observations using LETG with HRC-S as the focal plane detector. 

174: 

175: In FANG02, we report the results from three observations that were

176: conducted during May and December of 2000 and November of 2001, with a

177: total exposure time of 86.7 {\it ksec}. Subsequently, seven more

178: observations were conducted between June 2002 and September 2005. We

179: select those observations with at least 30 $ksec$ exposure time, which

180: results in a total of five more observations. Including these five

181: more observations increases the total exposure time to $\sim 277$ {\it

182:   ksec}, and the number of counts in the spectral regions of interests

183: is also increased by a factor of $\sim 5$. Table~1 lists the

184: observation log.  Seven of the eight observations have the nominal

185: offset pointing for LETG+ACIS-S: the aimpoint is moved by $\Delta

186: y=+1.5\arcmin$ along the observatory $y$ direction so that the most

187: interested wavelength range (0 -- 26 \AA) can be covered entirely by

188: backside chip S3, which has higher quantum efficiency and large

189: effective area, and the Scientific Instrument Module (SIM) is moved by

190: ($\rm SIM-Z=-8 mm$), to mitigate the CTI (Charge Transfer Inefficiency)-induced energy resolution degradation. This also avoids putting the zeroth-order at one of the node boundaries. The only exception is Obs.\#3669, which had a $y$-offset of $3.3\arcmin$. This put the aimpoint on chip S2. 

191: 

192: \begin{table}[t]

193: \small

194: \caption{Observation Log}

195: \begin{center}

196: \begin{tabular}{cccc}

197: \hline \hline 

198: Observation ID & Observation Date & Duration (ksec) & Reference \\

199: 

200: \hline

201: 

202: 1703 & 31~May~2000 & 26.7 & 1,2  \\

203: 2335 & 06~Dec~2000 & 30.0 & 1,2  \\

204: 3168 & 31~Nov~2001 & 30.0 & 1,2  \\

205: 3669 & 11~Jun~2002 & 50.0 & 2  \\

206: 3707 & 30~Nov~2002 & 30.0 & 2  \\

207: 4416 & 16~Dec~2003 & 50.0 & 2  \\

208: 6090 & 25~May~2005 & 30.0 & 2  \\

209: 6091 & 19~Sep~2005 & 30.0 & 2  \\

210: \hline

211: \end{tabular}

212: \tablerefs{1. Fang et al.~(2002); 2. this paper.}

213: \end{center}

214: \end{table}

215: 

216: Data analysis is performed as described in FANG02. We briefly

217: summarize here and refer the reader to that paper for more details. The

218: {\sl Chandra} LETGS produces a zeroth order image at the aim-point on

219: the focal plane detector, the ACIS-S array, with higher order spectra

220: dispersed to either side. The LETGS provides nearly constant spectral

221: resolution ($\Delta\lambda = 0.05 \AA$) through the entire bandpass

222: (0.3-5 keV). The moderate energy resolution of the CCD detector ACIS-S

223: is used to separate the overlapping orders of the dispersed

224: spectrum. We add the plus and minus sides to obtain the first order

225: spectrum. All the five data sets are analyzed with the standard {\sl

226: Chandra} Interactive Analysis of Observations (CIAO) \footnote{See

227: http://asc.harvard.edu/ciao} and customized Interactive Data Language

228: (IDL) routines.

229: 

230: \section{Continuum Spectral Analysis}

231: 

232: The continua are typically fitted with a power law modified by

233: neutral hydrogen absorption in the range between

234: 6 and 42 \AA.\ For observations \#1703, 2335, and 3168 we

235: refer to FANG02 for detailed model parameters. For \#3669, the data is

236: best fitted with a broken power law. The photon

237: indices are $2.52\pm0.02$ and $1.96\pm0.02$, with a break energy of

238: $\sim 2$ keV, and a flux of

239: $1.66\times 10^{-10}\rm\ ergs\,cm^{-2}s^{-1}$ between 0.5 and 2.4 keV. The

240: remaining four observations can be best fitted by a single power law

241: with photon indices of $(2.69\pm0.02, 2.69\pm0.02, 2.58\pm0.01,

242: 2.66\pm0.01)$, for \#3707, 4416, 6090, and 6091, respectively. The

243: flux between 0.5 and 2.4 keV is $(5.06,5.69,10.33,6.54)\times

244: 10^{-11}\rm\ ergs\,cm^{-2}s^{-1}$, respectively. All the models

245: include a Galactic absorption fixed at $N_H = 1.36\times10^{20}\rm\

246: cm^{-2}$ (Lockman \& Savage~1995; errors are quoted at 90\%

247: confidence). 

248: 

249: \begin{figure*}

250: \begin{center}

251: \includegraphics[angle=90,width=0.9\textwidth,height=0.6\textheight]{f1.eps}

252: \caption{Raw counts for the five observations between 18 and 22

253:   \AA. Bin size is 0.025 \AA.\ Two vertical dashed lines indicated positions of the redshifted \ion{O}{8} and

254:   rest \ion{O}{7} lines from FANG02.}

255: \label{fig:total1}

256: \end{center}

257: \end{figure*}

258: 

259: In Figure~\ref{fig:total1} we show the raw counts of the five

260: observations. The bin size is 0.025 \AA.\ The line spread function (LSF) of LETGS has a typical full width of half maximum (FWHM) of $\sim 0.05 \AA\ $. In this way one FWHM will contain two bins. Two vertical dashed lines indicate the wavelength of the redshifted \ion{O}{8} line (at $\sim 20$

261: \AA) reported by FANG02, and rest \ion{O}{7} lines (at $\sim 21.6$ \AA). There are no

262: strong absorption lines in these observations, but we do find

263: small dips in each of these observations at the corresponding positions.

264: 

265: \begin{figure*}

266: \begin{center}

267: \vskip-1.5cm

268: \resizebox{6in}{!}{\includegraphics[angle=90,width=1.\textwidth,height=0.7\textheight]{f2.eps}}

269: \end{center}

270: \vskip-1.5cm

271: \caption{The top panel shows the raw counts of the stacked data, with a binsize of 0.025 \AA.\ The bottom panel shows the flux spectrum. The red line show the best

272:   fitted model. Two vertical green dashed lines indicate positions of

273:   the redshifted \ion{O}{8} and rest \ion{O}{7} lines from FANG02.} 

274: \label{fig:total2}

275: \end{figure*}

276: 

277: To enhance the signal we stack all the eight data sets. To ensure that

278: all the eight observations are properly aligned with each other, we

279: also compare the wavelengths of two known features, atomic \ion{O}{1}

280: from our Galaxy and solid-state \ion{O}{1} from the instruments, and

281: calibrate the five data sets against these two lines

282: (FANG02). Only two observations (1703 and 2335) showed a systematic

283: shift of $\sim 0.05$ \AA\ shift, and we have to adjust the shift

284: manually. Figure~\ref{fig:total2} shows the stacked data between 18

285: and 22 \AA.\,We have achieved from $\sim$ 450 to 600 counts per bin

286: here, compared to $\sim 100$ counts per bin in FANG02. We again mark

287: the positions of the two absorption lines.

288: 

289: Measurement of narrow absorption features depends crucially on

290: determining the correct continuum level. However, a simple power law

291: cannot provide the best fit to the continuum of the stacked data for:

292: 1) there are spectral variations among different observations, and 2)

293: there are residual uncertainties in instrumental efficiencies. Instead we fit the local continuum using polynomials. More

294: specifically, we first fit the stacked data with a single power law

295: plus neutral hydrogen absorption as an initial guess. The residuals

296: between 6 and 42 \AA\, are then fitted with a six-order

297: polynomial. Such a polynomial will get rid of any features with a

298: characteristic scale of $\gtrsim 6$ \AA, but smaller features will be

299: preserved. Furthermore, to account for small scale fluctuations, we

300: divide the regions between 6 and 42 \AA\, into 9 bands, with a

301: bandwidth of 4 \AA\, each. For each region we then fit the residuals

302: from the previous power law fitting with a polynomial. The order of

303: this polynomial is given by the one that has the smallest

304: $\chi^2$. The red lines in Figure~\ref{fig:total2} show the final

305: result of the fitted continuum in the 18 -- 22 \AA\ range. The top panel shows the spectrum in units of counts per bin, with a binsize of 25 m\AA, and the bottom panel shows the flux,  in units of $\rm photons\ cm^{-2}s^{-1}\AA^{-1}$.

306: 

307: How well does our model depict the observed continuum? We first

308: calculate the $\chi$-distribution of the data. $\chi$ is defined as:

309: \begin{equation}

310: \chi = \frac{data\ count - model\ count}{(model\ count)^{1/2}}.

311: \end{equation}

312: We then run 10,000 Monte-Carlo simulations, each simulation is a

313: random realization of the model based on Poisson statistics, and we

314: also calculate the $\chi$-distribution of these

315: simulations. Figure~\ref{fig:resid} shows the comparison between the

316: data (dark line) and the simulation (red line). We find in general the

317: $\chi$-distribution of the data follows that of the simulation

318: reasonably. The data does show a long, negative tail,

319: this is actually caused by the absorption features that we will

320: discuss below. Excluding the three prominent absorption features

321: that we will discuss in the next section, we perform a

322: Kolmogorov-Smirnov test on the two distributions. The null hypothesis

323: that the data sets are drawn from the same distribution has a

324: significant level of $\sim 0.48$, suggesting that our model fits the

325: continuum quite well, and that our fitting procedure does take care of

326: small scale fluctuations. 

327: 

328: \begin{table}

329: %\footnotesize

330: \large

331: \caption{~~~~~~~~Line Fitting Parameters~~~~~~~~}

332: \begin{center}

333: \begin{tabular}{lllll}

334: \hline

335: \hline

336:                        & & \ion{O}{8} Ly$\alpha$\tablenotemark{a} & &  \ion{O}{7} He$\alpha$\tablenotemark{a} \\

337: \hline

338: $\rm Wavelength$       & & $20.00\pm0.01$            & & $21.60\pm0.01$ \\

339: $cz({\rm km\ s^{-1}})$ & & $16307\pm158$             & & $-26\pm138$ \\

340: Line Width\tablenotemark{b}       & & $< 0.027$                   & & $<0.029$ \\

341: $\rm Line\ Flux$\tablenotemark{c}   & & $2.1_{-0.8}^{+0.6}$         & & $3.9_{-1.1}^{+0.8}$ \\

342: EW (m${\rm \AA}$)      & & $7.42_{-1.94}^{+2.76}$        & & $13.75_{-2.80}^{+4.09}$ \\

343: SNR\tablenotemark{d}              & & 5.0                         & & 7.1 \\

344: \hline

345: \end{tabular}

346: \end{center}

347: \noindent a. Rest-frame wavelengths for \ion{O}{8} Ly$\alpha$ and \ion{O}{7}

348: He$\alpha$ are 18.9689 \AA\, and 21.6019 \AA\, respectively (Verner et

349: al.~1996). Errors are quoted at 90\% confidence level hereafter.\\

350: \noindent b. 90\% upper limit of the intrinsic line width $\sigma$, in units of

351: \AA.\ The FWHM of the fitted Gaussian line is $2.35\sigma$.\\ 

352: \noindent c. Absorbed line flux in units of $\rm 10^{-5}~photons~cm^{-2}s^{-1}$.\\

353: \noindent d. In units of equivalent sigma of a Gaussian distribution with the

354: same confidence level as the Poisson significance gives, based on the $\chi$-distribution.\\

355: \end{table}

356: 

357: \section{Results}

358: 

359: A blind search of the entire region from 6 to 42 \AA\ for features at $>3\sigma$ level give only three prominent absorption features, at $\sim 20.0$, 21.6, and 23.5 \AA.\, The last one is an interstellar \ion{O}{1} line and will not be discussed here. These two features at 20.0 and 21.6 \AA\ are subsequently analyzed with customized routines from the software package ISIS (Interactive Spectral

360: Interpretation System, see Houck \& Denicola~2000) \footnote{see

361:   http://space.mit.edu/ASC/ISIS/}. Specifically, we subtract the data

362: from the best-fit model, and then fit the residual with a Gaussian

363: line profile. The EW is an integration of $\left(1-I/I_0\right)$,

364: where $I$ is the observed spectrum, and $I_0$ is the continuum.  We

365: list the fitting parameters in Table~2. The Gaussian line fitting

366: gives a line width ($\sigma = 0.017$ and $0.021\rm\ \AA$ for the 20.0 and 21.6 \AA\

367: lines, respectively) that is even narrow than that of the instrumental

368: LSF, we only present the 90\% upper limits on the

369: intrinsic line widths. In calculating SNR (signal-to-noise ratio),

370: signal is the

371: total photon counts missed in the line, and noise is square-root of continuum

372: photon counts within the line profile. The continuum photon counts are the total of counts

373: under continuum, with a width of three times the measured line width, slightly

374: larger than the FWHM of the fitted Gaussian line. In

375: Figure~\ref{fig:lines} we show the residual spectra of both features

376: (black lines) and the fitted Gaussian lines (red lines). 

377: 

378: \subsection{Contamination from the Telescope Features?} 

379: 

380: Before we proceed to further discussion, we need to understand the effects of any fixed-position detector features (such as those chip gaps and node boundaries) and instrumental features (such as those absorption edges in the telescope materials). While over the entire wavelength range the telescope has been well calibrated, it is still likely that some of the variations of the effective area and/or detector quantum efficiency across these features can affect the estimated significances of our detected lines, if it happens that the detected lines are close to these telescope features.

381: 

382: We do not find any instrumental features near our two detected lines

383: (POG\footnote{{\sl Chandra} Proposers' Observatory Guide, see

384:   http://asc.harvard.edu/proposer/POG}, Table~9.4). The positions of

385: detector features depend on the aimpoint of each observation. For

386: commonly used offset pointing ($\Delta y = 1.5\arcmin$ and $\rm SIM-Z

387: = -8 mm$), the nominal aimpoint in S3 chip is moved from

388: $\rm(chipx,chipy)=(231,502)$ to $\rm(chipx,chipy)=(49,168)$, which

389: also avoids the zeroth-order being at one of the node boundaries. A

390: careful calculation indicates no telescope features around the 21.6

391: \AA\ line, but such configuration does put the positive first order

392: 20.0 \AA\ line close to the boundary between node 2 and node 3 in S3

393: chip. However, we believe this is unlikely to have large impact on the

394: significance of the 20.0 \AA\ line because of the following

395: considerations. First, as we stated before, Obs.\#3669, the one with

396: the most photon counts (accounts for almost half of the total counts

397: at 20.0 \AA), had a $y$-offset of $3.3\arcmin$, which put the aimpoint

398: in chip S2. This results in the positive first order 20.0 \AA\ line

399: being far away from any telescope features. Secondly, this line is

400: clearly visible in both positive and negative first order spectra. It

401: is unlikely that this line would be detected in the negative order if

402: it is caused by detector feature in the positive order. Thirdly, and

403: most importantly, we believe that our continuum-extraction technique

404: can take care of the small variation caused by node boundaries. During

405: most observations, the spacecraft is dithering to (1) smear out the

406: reduced exposure from chip gaps, and (2) smooth out pixel-to-pixel variation in

407: the response (see POG). The standard dithering pattern has a

408: peak-to-peak width of $16\arcsec$, this roughly corresponds to a

409: response variation on the scale of $\rm \sim 1 \AA\ $ for

410: LETGS. However, based on the fitting procedures we described in

411: section \S3, the residual between 18 and 22 \AA\ , after broadband

412: continuum-fitting with a power law and 6-order polynomial, was fitted

413: with another 6-order polynomial. This would get rid of any feature

414: with a typical scale of $\rm \gtrsim 0.7\ \AA\ $, which includes the

415: dithered node boundary. The effect of such procedure can be viewed from

416: Figure~\ref{fig:total2}: in the top panel, the raw counts spectrum shows

417: some variation between 19 and 21 \AA\ , however, in the bottom panel, such

418: variation has been smoothed out in the flux spectrum.    

419: 

420: \begin{figure}[t]

421: \begin{center}

422: \resizebox{3.5in}{!}{\includegraphics[angle=90,width=0.4\textwidth]{f3.eps}}

423: \end{center}

424: \caption{$\chi$-distribution of the data (dark line) and of 10,000

425:   Monte-Carlo simulations (red line).} 

426: \label{fig:resid}

427: \end{figure}

428: 

429: \subsection{Comparison with results from FANG02}

430: 

431: \begin{figure*}[t]

432: \begin{center}

433: \resizebox{6in}{!}{\includegraphics[angle=90]{f4.eps}}

434: \end{center}

435: \caption{Residual flux after subtracting the best-fitted continuum

436:   from the stacked data. The red lines show the ISIS-fitted Gaussian

437:   line profiles. The top panel is for the redshifted \ion{O}{8} line

438:   and the bottom panel is for the zero-redshift \ion{O}{7} line.}

439: \label{fig:lines}

440: \end{figure*}

441: 

442: Most importantly, our work does detect an absorption line at

443: 5$\sigma$ significance at $\sim 20$ \AA,\ confirming the initial

444: detection by FANG02. We find that the results presented in this paper

445: are consistent with those of FANG02, but the estimated EW in this work

446: ($7.42_{-1.94}^{+2.76}$) is about one-half of that estimated

447: earlier, based on many fewer counts (150 vs.  550 counts per bin) and with larger uncertainty. The two results

448: are consistent at 90\% confidence level. The properties of the

449: stronger local ($z

450: \approx 0$) \ion{O}{7} absorption line are fully consistent with those reported in FANG02.  

451: 

452: \subsection{Comparison with results from {\sl Chandra} LETG+HRC-S}

453: 

454: For a consistency check, we also analyzed the observations 

455: up to a date of 2004 November 22 taken with the LETG operated with High Resolution Camera for 

456: spectroscopy (HRC-S; Table~3). We reprocessed these observations

457: using the {\sl Chandra} Interactive Analysis of Observations (CIAO) software 

458: (ver. 3.3.0.1) with the calibration database CALDB (ver. 3.2.1). Because the

459: HRC itself does not have intrinsic energy resolution, the photons located 

460: to the same position of the grating arms but from 

461: different grating orders cannot be sorted out as in those observations with

462: ACIS. We therefore used a forward approach to account for the spectral order 

463: overlapping. For each observation, we first calculated the response matrix 

464: files (RMFs) and the auxiliary response functions (ARFs) for grating orders 

465: from the first to sixth (assuming the contributions to the spectrum from the 

466: higher $>6$ orders are negligible). We then added these six RMF and ARF pairs

467: to form an order-combined response (RSP) file using IDL routines from 

468: PINTofALE package\footnote{http://hea-www.harvard.edu/PINTofALE}.

469: To enhance the counting statistics, spectra from all the HRC-S observations,

470: after a consistency check, were co-added, and the RSP files are 

471: weight-averaged based on the corresponding exposure time and the continuum 

472: intensity obtained from a global fit to each individual spectrum.

473: 

474: \begin{table}

475: %\footnotesize

476: \large

477: \caption{HRC Observations}

478: \begin{center}

479: \begin{tabular}{rcc}

480: \hline

481: \hline

482: ObsID & Date & Exposure (ks) \\

483: \hline

484: 331   & 1999 Dec. 25 & 63.2 \\

485: 1013  & 2001 Apr. 06 & 26.8 \\

486: 1704  & 2000 May  31 & 26.0 \\

487: 3166  & 2001 Nov. 30 & 30.0 \\

488: 3709  & 2002 Nov. 30 & 13.8 \\

489: 4406  & 2002 Nov. 30 & 13.9 \\

490: 5172  & 2004 Nov. 22 & 27.2 \\

491: \hline

492: \end{tabular}

493: \end{center}

494: \end{table}

495: 

496: In Fig.~\ref{fig:hrc} we show the total HRC spectrum (from the first

497: to sixth order) between 18 and 22 \AA.\ The 21.6 \AA\ line is clearly

498: visible, but not the 20.0 \AA\ line. There are some hints of

499: absorption features between 19 and 20 \AA,\ but nothing near the

500: LETG+ACIS detected 20.0 \AA\ line. We cannot extract the first order

501: spectrum because of the reason we described above, but using a first

502: order response matrix, we estimate the continuum flux of the first

503: order is about 90\% of the total flux, which gives $\sim$ 450 counts

504: per 0.025 \AA\ at $\sim$ 20.0 \AA\ region. The observations with the

505: LETG+ACIS have a slightly stronger continuum ($\sim$ 550 counts per

506: 0.025 \AA\ at the same wavelength). We estimate the upper limit of an

507: absorption line EW, by adding such line in the spectrum and

508: calculating $\Delta\chi^2$ by varying line EW. This gives an upper

509: limit of $\sim 9$ m\AA,\ which is consistent with the result from the

510: LETG+ACIS observations. 

511: 

512: To further investigate the difference between the results from the

513: LETG+ACIS and LETG+HRC, we compare their LSFs. In

514: Figure~\ref{fig:lsf}, we show the LSFs of the LETG+ACIS (red line)

515: and the LETG+HRC (green line) at 20 \AA.\ The blue line is the LSF

516: of the {\sl XMM} RGS1, and we will discuss it later. Clearly, the HRC curve has a rather broad wing. This

517: suggests that when compared with that of the ACIS, more photons will

518: be distributed in the wing, and the significance at the line center

519: will be lower. Such broader profile is likely caused by the

520: non-linearities of the LETG+HRC-S dispersion relation\footnote{For

521:   detailed discussion on the non-linearities of the LETG+HRC-S

522:   dispersion relation, see

523:   http://cxc.harvard.edu/cal/Letg/Corrlam/.}. To test the impact of the LSF, we run 10,00 Monte-Carlo

524: simulations for both the LETG+ACIS and the LETG+HRC, based on the

525: Poisson statistics. Each simulation is a random realization of the

526: corresponded continuum model plus an absorption line at 20 \AA.\ We

527: adopt line parameters from the \ion{O}{8} line in Table~2 with an

528: intrinsic line width of 0.016 \AA,\ and then

529: fold it through the corresponded LSF. We find that out of 10,000

530: trials, the line is detected at $3\sigma$ level or higher in more than half of

531: the ACIS simulated spectra ($\sim$ 57\%); however, for the HRC

532: spectra, the detection probability decreases to about one-fourth

533: ($\sim$ 25\%).  

534: 

535: \subsection{Comparison with results from {\sl XMM}-Newton}

536: 

537: PKS~2155-304 was also extensively observed with {\sl

538:   XMM}-Newton. A detailed spectroscopy study of the RGS data was

539:   presented by Cagnoni et al.~(2004). They confirm the detection of

540:   zero-redshift \ion{O}{7} absorption line at a significance level of

541:   4.5$\sigma$. Their best fit equivalent width

542:   ($EW=19.50_{-8.17}^{+7.89}$ m\AA) is higher than what we measure but

543:   consistent at 90\% confidence level. They

544:   also claim that this line profile is possibly double

545:   peaked. Although the {\sl Chandra} LETG-ACIS has higher energy resolving power, we cannot confirm this structure in our data.

546: 

547: Cagnoni et al.~(2004) stated that they do not detect the redshifted \ion{O}{8}

548: absorption line at $\sim 20$ \AA,\ reported by FANG02, and set a

549: 3$\sigma$ upper limit of 14 m\AA.\ However, this value is large enough to be consistent with both the improved measurement and the original best fit value of FANG02 for the detected line.

550: 

551: To further compare the {\sl Chandra} and {\sl

552:   XMM}-Newton data, we reanalyze the {\sl XMM}-Newton data presented

553:   in Cagnoni et al.~(2004) with the same techniques adopted in this

554:   paper. In doing this we hope we can minimize the differences that

555:   can be caused by various data analysis techniques. For instance,

556:   whereas we apply a adapted-polynomial plus power law fit technique

557:   to subtract continuum, they use local absorbed power law to fit

558:   individual regions with bandwidths of 2 -- 3 \AA.\,

559: 

560: We use the three data sets that were analyzed in Cagnoni et al.~(2004) (ObsID

561: \#0080940101, 0080940301, and  0080940401). We do not select the

562: fourth observation (ObsID \#0080940501) because it contains a

563: background flare. These three observations have a total exposure time

564: of $\sim 110\,ksec$ (see Table~1 of Cagnoni et al.(2004) for detailed

565: observation log). We analyze the data with the standard Science

566: Analysis System (SAS) version 5.4.1 \footnote{See

567: http://xmm.vilspa.esa.es/}. We use only RGS-1 data since there is no

568: data between 20 and 24 \AA\, from RGS-2 due to the failure of a CCD

569: chip. The LSF of the RGS-1 has a FWHM of $\sim

570: 0.06$ \AA\ with rather extended wings \footnote{See {\sl XMM}-Newton Users' Handbook at

571: http://xmm.vilspa.esa.es/.}. We will not present our data extraction

572: procedures here, but refer reader to Cagnoni et al.~(2004) for details. After

573: obtaining the first order spectrum, we follow procedures that are

574: described in section \S3 to subtract the

575: continuum. Figure~\ref{fig:xmm_line} shows the RGS-1 spectrum between

576: 19.7 and 20.7 \AA.\ We obtain $\sim 450$ counts per 0.025 \AA\

577: bin. This is 20\% lower than what we observed in {\sl Chandra} data ($\sim

578: 550$ counts per 0.025 \AA\ ).

579: 

580: \begin{figure}[t]

581: \begin{center}

582: \resizebox{3.in}{!}{\includegraphics[angle=270]{f5.eps}}

583: \end{center}

584: \caption{LETG+HRC spectrum. The red line in the top panel is the model. The bottom panel shows $\chi^2$ with a sign.}

585: \label{fig:hrc}

586: \end{figure}

587: 

588: The dark solid line in figure~\ref{fig:xmm_line} shows the {\sl XMM}

589: data between 19.5 and 20.5 \AA.\, No absorption line is seen around

590: $\sim$ 20 \AA. With our continuum subtraction techniques, we obtain a

591: 3$\sigma$ upper limit of $\sim 10$ m\AA,\ consistent with what is

592: obtained in Cagnoni et al.~(2004) and the $\sim 7$ m\AA\ equivalent width line

593: we report in this paper. To demonstrate this, in

594: Figure~\ref{fig:xmm_line} we plot a 3$\sigma$, 10 m\AA\ line at $\sim$

595: 20 \AA\, in green. An illustration (but without imposing statistical

596: fluctuations) of how the line detected in {\sl Chandra} would appear

597: in the {\sl XMM} data is plotted in red. We adopt our {\sl Chandra}

598: line parameters, and then convolve the line with the RGS1

599: LSF\footnote{A template of the LSF was kindly provided by A.~Rasmussen.}. 

600: 

601: \begin{figure}[t]

602: \begin{center}

603: \resizebox{3.in}{!}{\includegraphics[angle=0]{f6.eps}}

604: \end{center}

605: \caption{The line spread functions of the {\sl Chandra} LETG+ACIS

606:   (red), the {\sl Chandra} LETG+HRC (green), and the {\sl XMM}

607:   RGS1(blue) at 20 \AA.}

608: \label{fig:lsf}

609: \end{figure}

610: 

611: In Figure~\ref{fig:xmm_ewchi} we show the $\Delta \chi^2$ of fitting

612: the {\sl XMM} data with a continuum plus a Gaussian line model (again,

613: convolved by the LSF), where $\Delta \chi^2 = 0$ is defined as no

614: Gaussian line. We fix the line center at $\lambda = 20$ \AA,\, and

615: gradually vary the line equivalent width. The horizontal dashed line indicates the $\Delta \chi^2 = 9$,

616: or 3$\sigma$ confidence. Three vertical dark lines show the line width

617: and 90\% lower and upper limits of our detection. Again, we find that

618: one would not have expected {\sl XMM}-Newton to detect the line seen

619: with {\sl Chandra}.

620: 

621: Two main reasons that explain the non-detection of the X-ray absorption

622: line in the {\sl Chandra} LETG+HRC data may also apply there. First, the continuum is slightly higher in {\sl Chandra} data. At 20 \AA,\ the {\sl Chandra} observations show $\sim 550$

623: counts per bin, compared with $\sim 450$ counts in the {\sl XMM}

624: data. Secondly, and most importantly, the LSF of the RGS1 not only is

625: larger than that of the LETGS, but also has rather extended wings. As

626: pointed out by Williams et al.~(2006) in a study of the {\sl XMM} data

627: of Mrk~421, the central 0.1 \AA\ region of a line contains about 96\%

628: of the total line flux for {\sl Chandra} LETG, for RGS this number

629: decreases to $\sim 68\%$. In Figure~\ref{fig:lsf} the dotted line is

630: the LSF of the RGS1. The wings of the RGS1 are even broader than that

631: of the LETG+HRC. We ran a similar Monte-Carlo simulation on the RGS1

632: data.  The result supports our finding: out of 10,000 trials, a

633: $3\sigma$ line is detected in only $\sim$ 10\% RGS1 spectra, compared

634: with nearly $\sim$ 57\% detection in the LETG+ACIS spectra, and $\sim$

635: 25\% detection in the LETG+HRC spectra. 

636: 

637: \section{Discussion}

638: 

639: Following FANG02 and assuming that the line is not saturated, the

640: column density of the redshifted \ion{O}{8} absorption line at $20$

641: \AA\, is N(\ion{O}{8})$ = 5.0^{+1.9}_{-1.3}\times

642: 10^{15}\rm\,cm^{-2}$. The line width sets an upper limit to the path

643: length of $\sim 5.8\,h^{-1}_{70}$ Mpc based on the Hubble flow

644: \footnote{We use $H_0 = 70\,h_{70}\rm\,km\,s^{-1}Mpc^{-1}$, and a

645: standard $\Lambda$CDM model with $\Omega_m=0.3$ and $\Omega_{\Lambda}

646: = 0.7$ throughout the paper}. This gives $n_{b} >

647: 5\times10^{-6}\,\rm cm^{-3}$ $Z_{0.1}^{-1}f_{0.5}^{-1}l_{5.8}^{-1}$

648: where $Z_{0.1}$ is the metallicity in units of 0.1 solar abundance

649: \footnote{We adopt solar abundance from Anders \& Grevesse~(1989)}, $f_{0.5}$ is

650: the ionization fraction in units of 0.5 and $l_{5.8}$ is the path

651: length in units of $5.8\,h_{70}^{-1}$ Mpc. A lower limit to the path

652: length of $\sim$ 1 Mpc can be obtained by assuming the absorber has

653: the size of the small galaxy group detected in 21 cm images (Shull et

654: al.~1998), which gives $n_{b} \approx 3.1\times

655: 10^{-5}\rm\,cm^{-3}$ $Z_{0.1}^{-1}f_{0.5}^{-1}$.  This implies a range of

656: baryon overdensities of $\delta_b \approx 30 - 150$, which, as found

657: in FANG02, is consistent with the predicted density of the WHIM gas

658: from cosmological hydrodynamic simulations (see, e.g., Cen \&

659: Ostriker~1999; Dav\'{e} et al.~2001).

660: 

661: To constrain the temperature we need to study the ionization structure

662: of the \ion{O}{8} absorber. Assuming collisional ionization equilibrium, the

663: ionization fraction is a function of temperature only, and

664: $f$(\ion{O}{8}), the ionization fraction of \ion{O}{8}, has a peak

665: value of $\sim$ 0.5 between 2 and 5 $\times 10^6$ K. A constraint on

666: the temperature of the \ion{O}{8} absorber can be obtained by studying the

667: column density ratio between \ion{O}{8} and \ion{O}{7}. Non-detection

668: of the \ion{O}{7} at the corresponding redshifted position

669: ($\lambda=22.77$ \AA) with a 3$\sigma$ upper limit on the

670: equivalent width of $\sim$ 9.6 m\AA,\,implies N(\ion{O}{7}) $ \lesssim

671: 3\times 10^{15}\rm\,cm^{-2}$, or

672: $\log[$N(\ion{O}{8})/N(\ion{O}{7})$] \gtrsim 0.22$. This constrains

673: the temperature to be $T \gtrsim 2.3\times 10^6$ K. However, we need

674: to be careful about the assumption of collisional ionization

675: equilibrium (Cen \& Fang~2006). 

676: 

677: \begin{figure}[t]

678: \begin{center}

679: \resizebox{3.5in}{!}{\includegraphics[angle=90]{f7.eps}}

680: \end{center}

681: \caption{{\sl XMM} data at $\sim 20$ \AA.\, The dark line shows the

682:   data, the green line shows the continuum with a 3$\sigma$ absorption

683:   line, and the red line shows the continuum with the line detected

684:   in {\sl Chandra} data. The line at $\sim$ 19.75 \AA\ is an instrumental feature.}

685: \label{fig:xmm_line}

686: \end{figure}

687: 

688: We can actually strengthen the constraint on temperature by searching

689: for potentially co-existing absorption lines at other

690: wavelengths. Recently, Shull et al.~(2003) reported the detection of a

691: series of \ion{H}{1} and \ion{O}{6} absorbers along the sight line

692: towards PKS~2155-304 between 16185 and 17116 $\rm\,km\,s^{-1}$. Based

693: on FANG02 they resorted to a multi-phase model to explain the

694: kinematic offsets among \ion{H}{1}, \ion{O}{6} and \ion{O}{8}

695: absorbers. The new measurement presented here indicates that these

696: absorbers may coexist owing to the small separation in velocity

697: space. For instance, the X-ray absorber may coexist with the component

698: A in their observation, which is located between 16185 and 16252

699: $\rm\,km\,s^{-1}$ and shows \ion{O}{6} absorption line. If this is

700: indeed a single absorber, we can set a tight range of the

701: \ion{O}{6}-to-\ion{O}{8} ratio:  $-2.68 \lesssim

702: \log[$N(\ion{O}{6})/N(\ion{O}{8})$] \lesssim -1.90 $. This in turn

703: sets temperature: $1.6 \lesssim T \lesssim 2.3 \times 10^6$ K. Using

704: the previous constraint from the \ion{O}{8}-to-\ion{O}{7} ratio, we

705: can put a tight constraint on the temperature of the component A: $T \approx 2.3 \times 10^6$ K.

706: 

707: \begin{figure}[t]

708: \begin{center}

709: \resizebox{3.5in}{!}{\includegraphics[angle=90]{f8.eps}}

710: \end{center}

711: \caption{$\Delta \chi^2$ from fitting {\sl XMM} data with a continuum

712:   plus a Gaussian line. The horizontal line shows the 3$\sigma$ upper

713:   limit. The shadowed red area indicates the equivalent width and

714:   90\% confidence range of the line that is detected in {\sl Chandra}

715:   data.}

716: \label{fig:xmm_ewchi}

717: \end{figure}

718: 

719: Our discussion on the density and temperature of the 20.0 \AA\

720: absorber depends on several crucial assumptions that need to be

721: closely examined. First, we assume the line is unsaturated. However,

722: the 90\% upper limit on the intrinsic line width can only give a

723: Doppler-$b$ parameter of $\lesssim 566 \rm\ km\ s^{-1}$, much

724: larger than the typical thermal broadening width $\sim 50\rm\ km\

725: s^{-1}$of a few million-degree gas. The non-detection of the high-order Lyman series, particularly the

726: Ly$\beta$ line at the rest-frame of $\sim 16$ \AA,\ can rule out the

727: saturate scenario at $1\sigma$ level only, and we notice in some cases

728: the local X-ray absorption line could be saturated (Williams et

729: al.~2006; Yao \& Wang~2006, 2007). If the line is saturated, the derived

730: column density can be treated as a lower limit only. If the line is

731: indeed unsaturated, it will be broad. As suggested by the clump-infall

732: model in Shull et al.~(2003), a shock-wave of $\sim 400 \rm\ km\ s^{-1}$

733: from structure evolution can provide such a non-thermal broadening

734: mechanism: such a shock-wave would produce a post-shock temperature of

735: $\sim 2\times 10^6$ K. 

736: 

737: 

738: Secondly, we assume the gas is in collisional

739: ionization equilibrium. Recent study, using numerical simulation,

740: shows that non-equilibrium evolution of various ion species can

741: produce significantly different effects (Cen \& Fang~2006; Yoshikawa

742: \& Sasaki~2006), since the timescales for ionization and recombination are

743: not widely separated from the Hubble timescale. Also, the relaxation

744: process between electrons and ions may produce a two-temperature

745: structure in the IGM and have impact on the metal ionization fraction,

746: since the relaxation time is comparable to the Hubble timescale

747: (Yoshida et al.~2005). However, we expect such process would be more

748: important for hotter gas at $T>10^7$ K (Yoshida et al.~2005). At

749: very low density, especially at $n_b \lesssim 10^{-5}\rm\,cm^{-3}$,

750: photoionization can also become important (see, e.g., Hellsten et al.~1998;

751: Nicastro et al.~2002; Chen et al.~2003; Williams et al.~2005). For instance, at $n_b =

752: 10^{-6}\rm\,cm^{-3}$, the \ion{O}{8} ionization curve peaks at $\sim

753: 3\times10^5$ K under the cosmic X-ray background radiation (Chen et al.~2003). 

754: 

755: Finally, we discuss the coexistence of \ion{O}{6} and

756: \ion{O}{8} absorbers primarily because of the proximity in radial

757: velocities. However, as suggested by Shull et al.~(2003), the \ion{O}{6}

758: line width is narrow ($40 \pm 10\rm\ km\ s^{-1} $ FWHM), and the

759: scenario that \ion{O}{6} and \ion{O}{8} can coexist is marginally

760: plausible within measurement errors ($\log T \approx 6.25 \pm 0.1$).    

761: 

762: The baryonic content $\Omega_b$(\ion{O}{8}) that is probed by the

763: \ion{O}{8} absorption can be estimated following Lanzetta et

764: al.~(1995) and Tripp et al.~(2000). Given the path length of the sight line toward

765: PKS~2155-304 of $\Delta z \approx 0.116$ and assuming an upper limit

766: of metallicity of $0.5Z_{\odot}$, we estimate $\Omega_b$(\ion{O}{8})

767: $\gtrsim 0.004\,h^{-1}_{70}$, or about 10\% of the total baryon

768: fraction. This number is consistent with the prediction of the WHIM

769: gas from numerical simulations. Based on this single detection, the

770: observed distribution $dn/dz$, defined as number of absorbers per unit

771: redshift, is higher than what simulation predicts (see, e.g., Cen \&

772: Fang~2006, Fig.~4).  We certainly need more detections to improve

773: statistics. 

774: 

775: Note: After we submitted this paper, Williams et al.~(2006b) published

776: a paper on the {\sl Chandra} archival data of PKS~2155-304. While they

777: mainly focused on the local $z=0$ absorption lines, they also

778: discussed the intervening absorption line we reported in FANG02. They

779: confirmed the detection of this line using the {\sl Chandra}

780: LETG-ACIS. The measured equivalent width is ($7.5\pm2.1$ m\AA)\ is

781: consistent with what we found, although the significance is lower

782: ($3.5\sigma$). They did

783: not detect this line using the {\sl Chandra} LETG-HRC, but obtained an

784: upper limit of $\sim 12.5$ m\AA.\ This is in agreement with what we

785: found with the HRC data, and is consistent with the detection in the

786: ACIS data.

787: 

788: \acknowledgments

789: We thank Herman Marshall for providing helpful

790: IDL tools for data analysis. We also thank the referee Fabrizio

791: Nicastro for useful

792: suggestions. We thank David Buote and Andrew Rasmussen for useful discussions. TF was supported by the NASA through {\sl

793: Chandra} Postdoctoral Fellowship Award Number PF3-40030 issued by the

794: {\sl Chandra} X-ray Observatory Center, which is operated by the

795: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory for and on behalf of the NASA

796: under contract NAS 8-39073. CRC and YY are supported by NASA through the Smithsonian Astrophysical

797: Observatory (SAO) contract SV3-73016 to MIT for support

798: of the Chandra X-Ray Center, which is operated by the SAO

799: for and on behalf of NASA under contract NAS 08-03060. YY is also

800: supported by AR7-8014. 

801: 

802: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

803: 

804: \bibitem[Anders \& Grevesse(1989)]{1989GeCoA..53..197A} Anders, E., \& 

805: Grevesse, N.\ 1989, \gca, 53, 197 

806: 

807: 

808: \bibitem[Bahcall et al.(1991)]{1991ApJ...377L...5B} Bahcall, J.~N., 

809: Jannuzi, B.~T., Schneider, D.~P., Hartig, G.~F., Bohlin, R., \& 

810: Junkkarinen, V.\ 1991, \apjl, 377, L5 

811: 

812: 

813: \bibitem[Bregman \& Lloyd-Davies(2007)]{2007arXiv0707.1699B} Bregman, 

814: J.~N., \& Lloyd-Davies, E.~J.\ 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 707, arXiv:0707.1699 

815: 

816: 

817: \bibitem[Cagnoni et al.(2004)]{2004ApJ...603..449C} Cagnoni, I., Nicastro, 

818: F., Maraschi, L., Treves, A., \& Tavecchio, F.\ 2004, \apj, 603, 449 

819: 

820: 

821: \bibitem[Cen \& Fang(2006)]{2006ApJ...650..573C} Cen, R., \& Fang, T.\ 

822: 2006, \apj, 650, 573 

823: 

824: 

825: \bibitem[Cen \& Ostriker(2006)]{2006ApJ...650..560C} Cen, R., \& Ostriker, 

826: J.~P.\ 2006, \apj, 650, 560 

827: 

828: 

829: \bibitem[Cen \& Ostriker(1999)]{1999ApJ...514....1C} Cen, R., \& Ostriker, 

830: J.~P.\ 1999, \apj, 514, 1 

831: 

832: 

833: \bibitem[Chen et al.(2003)]{2003ApJ...594...42C} Chen, X., Weinberg, D.~H., 

834: Katz, N., \& Dav{\'e}, R.\ 2003, \apj, 594, 42 

835: 

836: 

837: \bibitem[Croft et al.(2001)]{2001ApJ...557...67C} Croft, R.~A.~C., Di 

838: Matteo, T., Dav{\'e}, R., Hernquist, L., Katz, N., Fardal, M.~A., \& 

839: Weinberg, D.~H.\ 2001, \apj, 557, 67 

840: 

841: 

842: \bibitem[Danforth \& Shull(2005)]{2005ApJ...624..555D} Danforth, C.~W., \& 

843: Shull, J.~M.\ 2005, \apj, 624, 555 

844: 

845: 

846: \bibitem[Dav{\'e} et al.(2001)]{2001ApJ...552..473D} Dav{\'e}, R., et al.\ 

847: 2001, \apj, 552, 473 

848: 

849: 

850: \bibitem[Fang et al.(2005)]{2005ApJ...623..612F} Fang, T., Croft, R.~A.~C., 

851: Sanders, W.~T., Houck, J., Dav{\'e}, R., Katz, N., Weinberg, D.~H., \& 

852: Hernquist, L.\ 2005, \apj, 623, 612 

853: 

854: 

855: \bibitem[Fang et al.(2002)]{2002ApJ...572L.127F} Fang, T., Marshall, H.~L., 

856: Lee, J.~C., Davis, D.~S., \& Canizares, C.~R.\ 2002, \apjl, 572, L127 

857: 

858: 

859: \bibitem[Fang et al.(2006)]{2006ApJ...644..174F} Fang, T., Mckee, C.~F., 

860: Canizares, C.~R., \& Wolfire, M.\ 2006, \apj, 644, 174 

861: 

862: 

863: \bibitem[Fang et al.(2003)]{2003ApJ...586L..49F} Fang, T., Sembach, K.~R., 

864: \& Canizares, C.~R.\ 2003, \apjl, 586, L49 

865: 

866: 

867: \bibitem[Finoguenov et al.(2003)]{2003A&A...410..777F} Finoguenov, A., 

868: Briel, U.~G., \& Henry, J.~P.\ 2003, \aap, 410, 777 

869: 

870: 

871: \bibitem[Fujimoto et al.(2004)]{2004PASJ...56L..29F} Fujimoto, R., et al.\ 

872: 2004, \pasj, 56, L29 

873: 

874: 

875: \bibitem[Furlanetto et al.(2005)]{2005MNRAS.359..295F} Furlanetto, S.~R., 

876: Phillips, L.~A., \& Kamionkowski, M.\ 2005, \mnras, 359, 295 

877: 

878: 

879: \bibitem[Furlanetto et al.(2004)]{2004ApJ...606..221F} Furlanetto, S.~R., 

880: Schaye, J., Springel, V., \& Hernquist, L.\ 2004, \apj, 606, 221 

881: 

882: 

883: \bibitem[Hellsten et al.(1998)]{1998ApJ...509...56H} Hellsten, U., Gnedin, 

884: N.~Y., \& Miralda-Escud{\'e}, J.\ 1998, \apj, 509, 56 

885: 

886: 

887: \bibitem[Houck \& Denicola(2000)]{2000ASPC..216..591H} Houck, J.~C., \& 

888: Denicola, L.~A.\ 2000, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems IX, 

889: 216, 591 

890: 

891: 

892: \bibitem[Kaastra et al.(2006)]{2006ApJ...652..189K} Kaastra, J.~S., Werner, 

893: N., Herder, J.~W.~A.~d., Paerels, F.~B.~S., de Plaa, J., Rasmussen, A.~P., 

894: \& de Vries, C.~P.\ 2006, \apj, 652, 189 

895: 

896: 

897: \bibitem[Kaastra(2004)]{2004JKAS...37..375K} Kaastra, J.~S.\ 2004, Journal 

898: of Korean Astronomical Society, 37, 375 

899: 

900: 

901: \bibitem[Kaspi et al.(2002)]{2002ApJ...574..643K} Kaspi, S., et al.\ 2002, 

902: \apj, 574, 643 

903: 

904: 

905: \bibitem[Kawahara et al.(2006)]{2006PASJ...58..657K} Kawahara, H., 

906: Yoshikawa, K., Sasaki, S., Suto, Y., Kawai, N., Mitsuda, K., Ohashi, T., \& 

907: Yamasaki, N.~Y.\ 2006, \pasj, 58, 657 

908: 

909: \bibitem[Kravtsov et al.(2002)]{2002ApJ...571..563K} Kravtsov, A.~V., 

910: Klypin, A., \& Hoffman, Y.\ 2002, \apj, 571, 563 

911: 

912: \bibitem[Kuntz et al.(2001)]{2001ApJ...548L.119K} Kuntz, K.~D., Snowden, 

913: S.~L., \& Mushotzky, R.~F.\ 2001, \apjl, 548, L119 

914: 

915: 

916: \bibitem[Lanzetta et al.(1995)]{1995ApJ...440..435L} Lanzetta, K.~M., 

917: Wolfe, A.~M., \& Turnshek, D.~A.\ 1995, \apj, 440, 435 

918: 

919: 

920: \bibitem[Lehner et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...658..680L} Lehner, N., Savage, 

921: B.~D., Richter, P., Sembach, K.~R., Tripp, T.~M., \& Wakker, B.~P.\ 2007, 

922: \apj, 658, 680 

923: 

924: 

925: \bibitem[Lockman \& Savage(1995)]{1995ApJS...97....1L} Lockman, F.~J., \& 

926: Savage, B.~D.\ 1995, \apjs, 97, 1 

927: 

928: 

929: \bibitem[Mannucci et al.(2007)]{2007A&A...468..807M} Mannucci, F., Bonnoli, 

930: G., Zappacosta, L., Maiolino, R., \& Pedani, M.\ 2007, \aap, 468, 807 

931: 

932: 

933: \bibitem[Mathur et al.(2003)]{2003ApJ...582...82M} Mathur, S., Weinberg, 

934: D.~H., \& Chen, X.\ 2003, \apj, 582, 82 

935: 

936: 

937: \bibitem[McKernan et al.(2005)]{2005MNRAS.361.1337M} McKernan, B., Yaqoob, 

938: T., \& Reynolds, C.~S.\ 2005, \mnras, 361, 1337 

939: 

940: 

941: \bibitem[McKernan et al.(2003)]{2003ApJ...598L..83M} McKernan, B., Yaqoob, 

942: T., Mushotzky, R., George, I.~M., \& Turner, T.~J.\ 2003, \apjl, 598, L83 

943: 

944: 

945: \bibitem[McKernan et al.(2004)]{2004ApJ...617..232M} McKernan, B., Yaqoob, 

946: T., \& Reynolds, C.~S.\ 2004, \apj, 617, 232 

947: 

948: 

949: \bibitem[Mittaz et al.(2004)]{2004ApJ...617..860M} Mittaz, J., Lieu, R., 

950: Cen, R., \& Bonamente, M.\ 2004, \apj, 617, 860 

951: 

952: 

953: \bibitem[Morris et al.(1991)]{1991ApJ...377L..21M} Morris, S.~L., Weymann, 

954: R.~J., Savage, B.~D., \& Gilliland, R.~L.\ 1991, \apjl, 377, L21 

955: 

956: 

957: \bibitem[Nicastro et al.(2005)]{2005Natur.433..495N} Nicastro, F., et al.\ 

958: 2005, \nat, 433, 495 

959: 

960: 

961: \bibitem[Nicastro et al.(2002)]{2002ApJ...573..157N} Nicastro, F., et al.\ 

962: 2002, \apj, 573, 157 

963: 

964: 

965: \bibitem[Oegerle et al.(2000)]{2000ApJ...538L..23O} Oegerle, W.~R., et al.\ 

966: 2000, \apjl, 538, L23 

967: 

968: 

969: \bibitem[Penton et al.(2004)]{2004ApJS..152...29P} Penton, S.~V., Stocke, 

970: J.~T., \& Shull, J.~M.\ 2004, \apjs, 152, 29 

971: 

972: 

973: \bibitem[Penton et al.(2000)]{2000ApJS..130..121P} Penton, S.~V., Stocke, 

974: J.~T., \& Shull, J.~M.\ 2000, \apjs, 130, 121 

975: 

976: 

977: \bibitem[Perna \& Loeb(1998)]{1998ApJ...503L.135P} Perna, R., \& Loeb, A.\ 

978: 1998, \apjl, 503, L135 

979: 

980: \bibitem[Phillips et al.(2001)]{2001ApJ...554L...9P} Phillips, L.~A., 

981: Ostriker, J.~P., \& Cen, R.\ 2001, \apjl, 554, L9 

982: 

983: 

984: \bibitem[Rasmussen et al.(2003)]{2003ASSL..281..109R} Rasmussen, A., Kahn, 

985: S.~M., \& Paerels, F.\ 2003, The IGM/Galaxy Connection.~The Distribution of 

986: Baryons at z=0, 281, 109 

987: 

988: 

989: \bibitem[Rasmussen et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...656..129R} Rasmussen, A.~P., 

990: Kahn, S.~M., Paerels, F., Herder, J.~W.~d., Kaastra, J., \& de Vries, C.\ 

991: 2007, \apj, 656, 129 

992: 

993: 

994: \bibitem[Ravasio et al.(2005)]{2005A&A...438..481R} Ravasio, M., 

995: Tagliaferri, G., Pollock, A.~M.~T., Ghisellini, G., \& Tavecchio, F.\ 2005, 

996: \aap, 438, 481 

997: 

998: 

999: \bibitem[Richter et al.(2006)]{2006A&A...451..767R} Richter, P., Fang, T., 

1000: \& Bryan, G.~L.\ 2006, \aap, 451, 767 

1001: 

1002: 

1003: \bibitem[Richter et al.(2004)]{2004ApJS..153..165R} Richter, P., Savage, 

1004: B.~D., Tripp, T.~M., \& Sembach, K.~R.\ 2004, \apjs, 153, 165 

1005: 

1006: 

1007: \bibitem[Savage et al.(2002)]{2002ApJ...564..631S} Savage, B.~D., Sembach, 

1008: K.~R., Tripp, T.~M., \& Richter, P.\ 2002, \apj, 564, 631 

1009: 

1010: 

1011: \bibitem[Savage et al.(1998)]{1998AJ....115..436S} Savage, B.~D., Tripp, 

1012: T.~M., \& Lu, L.\ 1998, \aj, 115, 436 

1013: 

1014: 

1015: \bibitem[Sembach et al.(2001)]{2001ApJ...561..573S} Sembach, K.~R., Howk, 

1016: J.~C., Savage, B.~D., Shull, J.~M., \& Oegerle, W.~R.\ 2001, \apj, 561, 573 

1017: 

1018: 

1019: \bibitem[Sembach et al.(2004)]{2004ApJS..155..351S} Sembach, K.~R., Tripp, 

1020: T.~M., Savage, B.~D., \& Richter, P.\ 2004, \apjs, 155, 351 

1021: 

1022: 

1023: \bibitem[Shull et al.(1998)]{1998AJ....116.2094S} Shull, J.~M., Penton, 

1024: S.~V., Stocke, J.~T., Giroux, M.~L., van Gorkom, J.~H., Lee, Y.~H., \& 

1025: Carilli, C.\ 1998, \aj, 116, 2094 

1026: 

1027: 

1028: \bibitem[Shull et al.(1996)]{1996AJ....111...72S} Shull, J.~M., Stocke, 

1029: J.~T., \& Penton, S.\ 1996, \aj, 111, 72 

1030: 

1031: 

1032: \bibitem[Shull et al.(2003)]{2003ApJ...594L.107S} Shull, J.~M., Tumlinson, 

1033: J., \& Giroux, M.~L.\ 2003, \apjl, 594, L107 

1034: 

1035: 

1036: \bibitem[So{\l}tan et al.(2005)]{2005A&A...436...67S} So{\l}tan, A.~M., 

1037: Freyberg, M.~J., \& Hasinger, G.\ 2005, \aap, 436, 67 

1038: 

1039: 

1040: \bibitem[Stocke et al.(2006)]{2006ApJ...641..217S} Stocke, J.~T., Penton, 

1041: S.~V., Danforth, C.~W., Shull, J.~M., Tumlinson, J., \& McLin, K.~M.\ 2006, 

1042: \apj, 641, 217 

1043: 

1044: 

1045: \bibitem[Stocke et al.(1995)]{1995ApJ...451...24S} Stocke, J.~T., Shull, 

1046: J.~M., Penton, S., Donahue, M., \& Carilli, C.\ 1995, \apj, 451, 24 

1047: 

1048: 

1049: \bibitem[Takei et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...655..831T} Takei, Y., Henry, J.~P., 

1050: Finoguenov, A., Mitsuda, K., Tamura, T., Fujimoto, R., \& Briel, U.~G.\ 

1051: 2007, \apj, 655, 831 

1052: 

1053: 

1054: \bibitem[Takei et al.(2007)]{2007PASJ...59S.339T} Takei, Y., et al.\ 2007, 

1055: \pasj, 59, 339 

1056: 

1057: 

1058: \bibitem[Tripp \& Savage(2000)]{2000ApJ...542...42T} Tripp, T.~M., \& 

1059: Savage, B.~D.\ 2000, \apj, 542, 42 

1060: 

1061: 

1062: \bibitem[Tripp et al.(2000)]{2000ApJ...534L...1T} Tripp, T.~M., Savage, 

1063: B.~D., \& Jenkins, E.~B.\ 2000, \apjl, 534, L1 

1064: 

1065: 

1066: \bibitem[Tumlinson \& Fang(2005)]{2005ApJ...623L..97T} Tumlinson, J., \& 

1067: Fang, T.\ 2005, \apjl, 623, L97 

1068: 

1069: 

1070: \bibitem[Tumlinson et al.(2005)]{2005ApJ...620...95T} Tumlinson, J., Shull, 

1071: J.~M., Giroux, M.~L., \& Stocke, J.~T.\ 2005, \apj, 620, 95 

1072: 

1073: 

1074: \bibitem[Ursino \& Galeazzi(2006)]{2006ApJ...652.1085U} Ursino, E., \& 

1075: Galeazzi, M.\ 2006, \apj, 652, 1085 

1076: 

1077: 

1078: \bibitem[Verner et al.(1996)]{1996ADNDT..64....1V} Verner, D.~A., Verner, 

1079: E.~M., \& Ferland, G.~J.\ 1996, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, 64, 1 

1080: 

1081: 

1082: \bibitem[Viel et al.(2003)]{2003MNRAS.341..792V} Viel, M., Branchini, E., 

1083: Cen, R., Matarrese, S., Mazzotta, P., \& Ostriker, J.~P.\ 2003, \mnras, 

1084: 341, 792 

1085: 

1086: 

1087: \bibitem[Wang et al.(2005)]{2005ApJ...635..386W} Wang, Q.~D., et al.\ 2005, 

1088: \apj, 635, 386 

1089: 

1090: 

1091: \bibitem[Williams et al.(2006)]{2006ApJ...645..179W} Williams, R.~J., 

1092: Mathur, S., \& Nicastro, F.\ 2006, \apj, 645, 179 

1093: 

1094: 

1095: \bibitem[Williams et al.(2006)]{2006astro.ph.11583W} Williams, R.~J., 

1096: Mathur, S., Nicastro, F., \& Elvis, M.\ 2006, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints, 

1097: arXiv:astro-ph/0611583 

1098: 

1099: 

1100: \bibitem[Williams et al.(2006)]{2006ApJ...642L..95W} Williams, R.~J., 

1101: Mathur, S., Nicastro, F., \& Elvis, M.\ 2006, \apjl, 642, L95 

1102: 

1103: 

1104: \bibitem[Williams et al.(2005)]{2005ApJ...631..856W} Williams, R.~J., et 

1105: al.\ 2005, \apj, 631, 856 

1106: 

1107: 

1108: \bibitem[Williger et al.(2006)]{2006ApJ...636..631W} Williger, G.~M., Heap, 

1109: S.~R., Weymann, R.~J., Dav{\'e}, R., Ellingson, E., Carswell, R.~F., Tripp, 

1110: T.~M., \& Jenkins, E.~B.\ 2006, \apj, 636, 631 

1111: 

1112: 

1113: \bibitem[Yao et al.(2006)]{2006ApJ...653L.121Y} Yao, Y., Schulz, N., Wang, 

1114: Q.~D., \& Nowak, M.\ 2006, \apjl, 653, L121 

1115: 

1116: 

1117: \bibitem[Yao \& Wang(2005)]{2005ApJ...624..751Y} Yao, Y., \& Wang, Q.~D.\ 

1118: 2005, \apj, 624, 751 

1119: 

1120: 

1121: \bibitem[Yao \& Wang(2007)]{2007ApJ...658.1088Y} Yao, Y., \& Wang, Q.~D.\ 

1122: 2007, \apj, 658, 1088 

1123: 

1124: 

1125: \bibitem[Yoshida et al.(2005)]{2005ApJ...618L..91Y} Yoshida, N., 

1126: Furlanetto, S.~R., \& Hernquist, L.\ 2005, \apjl, 618, L91 

1127: 

1128: 

1129: \bibitem[Yoshikawa et al.(2004)]{2004PASJ...56..939Y} Yoshikawa, K., et 

1130: al.\ 2004, \pasj, 56, 939 

1131: 

1132: 

1133: \bibitem[Yoshikawa \& Sasaki(2006)]{2006PASJ...58..641Y} Yoshikawa, K., \& 

1134: Sasaki, S.\ 2006, \pasj, 58, 641 

1135: 

1136: 

1137: \bibitem[Yoshikawa et al.(2003)]{2003PASJ...55..879Y} Yoshikawa, K., 

1138: Yamasaki, N.~Y., Suto, Y., Ohashi, T., Mitsuda, K., Tawara, Y., \& 

1139: Furuzawa, A.\ 2003, \pasj, 55, 879 

1140: 

1141: 

1142: \bibitem[Zappacosta et al.(2005)]{2005MNRAS.357..929Z} Zappacosta, L., 

1143: Maiolino, R., Mannucci, F., Gilli, R., \& Schuecker, P.\ 2005, \mnras, 357, 

1144: 929 

1145: 

1146: 

1147: \bibitem[Zappacosta et al.(2002)]{2002A&A...394....7Z} Zappacosta, L., 

1148: Mannucci, F., Maiolino, R., Gilli, R., Ferrara, A., Finoguenov, A., Nagar, 

1149: N.~M., \& Axon, D.~J.\ 2002, \aap, 394, 7 

1150: 

1151: \end{thebibliography}

1152: 

1153: \end{document}

1154: 

1155: 

1156: