1: \documentclass{emulateapj}
2: \usepackage{apjfonts}
3:
4: \def\etal{{\it et~al.}}
5:
6:
7: \shorttitle{A Dense Gas Trigger for OH Megamasers}
8: \shortauthors{Darling}
9:
10: \begin{document}
11: \title{A Dense Gas Trigger for OH Megamasers}
12: \author{Jeremy Darling\altaffilmark{1}}
13: \altaffiltext{1}{Center for Astrophysics and Space Astronomy,
14: Department of Astrophysical and Planetary Sciences,
15: University of Colorado, 389 UCB, Boulder, CO 80309-0389;
16: jdarling@origins.colorado.edu}
17:
18: \begin{abstract}
19: HCN and CO line diagnostics provide
20: new insight into the OH megamaser (OHM) phenomenon, suggesting a
21: dense gas trigger for OHMs.
22: We identify three physical properties that differentiate
23: OHM hosts from
24: other starburst galaxies:
25: (1) OHMs have the highest mean molecular gas densities among starburst
26: galaxies; nearly all OHM hosts have
27: $\bar{n}({\rm H}_2)=10^3$--$10^4$~cm$^{-3}$ (OH line-emitting clouds likely
28: have $n({\rm H}_2)>10^4$~cm$^{-3}$).
29: (2) OHM hosts are a distinct population in the nonlinear part of the
30: IR-CO relation.
31: (3) OHM hosts have exceptionally high dense molecular gas fractions,
32: $L_{\rm HCN}/L_{\rm CO}>0.07$, and comprise roughly half of this
33: unusual population.
34: OH absorbers and kilomasers generally follow the linear IR-CO
35: relation and are uniformly distributed in dense gas fraction and
36: $L_{\rm HCN}$, demonstrating that OHMs are independent of OH abundance.
37: The fraction of non-OHMs with high mean densities
38: and high dense gas fractions constrains beaming to be a minor effect:
39: OHM emission solid angle must exceed $2\pi$ steradians.
40: Contrary to conventional wisdom,
41: IR luminosity does not dictate OHM formation; both star formation and
42: OHM activity are consequences of tidal density enhancements accompanying
43: galaxy interactions. The OHM fraction in starbursts is likely
44: due to the fraction
45: of mergers experiencing a temporal spike in tidally driven density
46: enhancement.
47: OHMs are thus signposts marking the most intense, compact, and
48: unusual modes of star formation in the local universe.
49: Future high redshift OHM surveys can now be interpreted in a star
50: formation and galaxy evolution context, indicating both the merging rate
51: of galaxies and the burst contribution to star formation.
52: \end{abstract}
53: \keywords{masers --- galaxies: interactions ---
54: galaxies: nuclei --- galaxies: starburst
55: --- radio lines: galaxies}
56:
57:
58: \section{Introduction}
59:
60: OH megamasers (OHMs) are rare luminous 18~cm masers associated with
61: major galaxy merger-induced starbursts.
62: The hosts of OHMs are (ultra)luminous IR galaxies ([U]LIRGs), and the
63: OHM fraction in (U)LIRGs peaks at about 1/3 %$\frac{1}{3}$
64: in the highest luminosity mergers \citep{darling02a}.
65: It is not known whether all major mergers experience an
66: OHM stage or what detailed physical conditions produce OHMs, but
67: it is clear that OHMs are a radically different phenomenon from
68: the aggregate OH maser emission associated with ``normal'' (Galactic)
69: modes of star formation in galaxies.
70: \citet{lo05} posed a key question:
71: why do $80\%$ of LIRGs show no OHM
72: activity? To reframe the question: given two merging systems with
73: similar global IR and radio continuum properties in the same morphological
74: stage of merging, why does one show OHM emission while the other does not?
75: What is the difference between the two systems? Perhaps there is no
76: difference and the fraction of OHMs among mergers simply reflects beaming
77: or OH abundance.
78: Or perhaps OHM activity depends on small-scale conditions that are
79: decoupled from global properties of mergers.
80:
81: The provenance of OHM emission vis-\`{a}-vis the host galaxy
82: has been extensively investigated in the radio through
83: X-ray bands by comparing samples of OHM galaxies to
84: similarly selected non-masing control samples.
85: For example,
86: \citet{darling02a} and \citet{baan06} studied
87: radio and IR properties vis-\`{a}-vis the AGN versus starburst contributions
88: to OHM activity,
89: \citet{baan1992} and \citet{darling02a}
90: investigated the OHM fraction in (U)LIRGs versus star
91: formation rate and IR color,
92: \citet{baan1998} and \citet{darling06} used optical spectral
93: classification to distinguish populations and to quantify AGN fraction in
94: OHM hosts,
95: and \citet{vignali05} conducted an X-ray study of
96: the contribution of AGNs to OHM hosts.
97: While some of these studies pointed to minor
98: differences in statistical samples of OHM hosts versus nonmasing systems,
99: they could not identify on a case-by-case basis which systems would
100: harbor OHMs and which would not based on any observable quantity except the
101: OH line itself.
102:
103: Theoretical modeling of OHM formation has seen a recent renaissance:
104: \citet{parra2005} model the $\sim50$~pc molecular torus in
105: III~Zw~35 and show how
106: OHM emission is a stochastic amplification of unsaturated emission by
107: multiple overlapping clouds, and \citet{lockett07}
108: show how the general excitation of OHMs is fundamentally
109: different from Galactic OH maser emission and predict that a single
110: excitation temperature governs all 18~cm OH lines. While the physics of OHMs
111: is crystallizing, and models predict that beaming is not likely to be
112: the dominant factor in the OHM fraction among (U)LIRGs, it remains unclear
113: on a case-by-case basis what conditions found in starbursts drive or prohibit
114: OHM formation.
115:
116: % HCN($1-0$) is a high density molecular gas tracer
117: % %(critical $n({\rm H}_2) = 2\times10^4$--$2\times10^5$~cm$^{-3}$;
118: % %\citet{krumholz07}),
119: % that scales linearly with IR luminosity $L_{\rm IR}$, a proxy for
120: % star formation, even in ULIRGs where the
121: % CO-IR relation becomes nonlinear (Gao \& Solomon 2004b; hereafter GS04b)
122: % GS04b show that the population of ``CO-saturated''
123: % ULIRGs have an extreme dense gas fraction, as measured by
124: % $L_{\rm HCN}/L_{\rm CO}$.
125:
126: Here we describe a dense gas trigger for OHM formation, at last
127: identifying physical observable properties that differentiate
128: OHMs from nonmasing mergers. We identify OHMs,
129: OH absorbers, OH kilomasers, and OH non-detections in the
130: Gao \& Solomon (2004a; hereafter GS04a) sample (\S \ref{sec:sample}) and
131: employ CO($1-0$) and HCN($1-0$) molecular gas tracers
132: to show that while OH absorbers appear nearly uniformly distributed
133: in $L_{\rm IR}$ and $L_{\rm HCN}$, OHMs represent the {\it majority} of
134: the nonlinear population in the IR-CO
135: relation (\S \ref{sec:results}). In combination with
136: a Kennicutt-Schmidt-based star formation model of CO line emission
137: by \citet{krumholz07}, we identify a high mean molecular density
138: driving OHM emission, and from the HCN/CO ratio
139: we find that OHM galaxies are exclusively
140: high dense gas fraction starbursts (\S \ref{sec:results}).
141: Now that we can at last observe quantities
142: that are highly predictive of OHM activity, we can employ OHMs at
143: high redshifts as probes of major galaxy mergers and extreme
144: star formation (\S \ref{sec:discussion}).
145:
146:
147: \section{The Sample}\label{sec:sample}
148:
149: The somewhat diverse GS04a HCN sample that forms the basis for this study
150: includes most IR- and CO-bright
151: galaxies (by flux) and most local northern ULIRGs ($cz < 20,000$~km~s$^{-1}$).
152: Table \ref{tab:HCNsample} lists basic properties and line luminosities
153: of all galaxies in the sample
154: %, including HCN and CO data from \citet{solomon92},
155: %\citet{nguyen92}, and \citet{henkel94},
156: that have been observed in the 1667~MHz OH line by various groups.
157: The HCN sample includes 8 OHMs,
158: 12 OH absorption systems, 4 OH kilomasers, and 40 OH nondetections.
159: While the division between OH kilomasers and OHMs
160: at $L_{\rm OH} = 10~L_\odot$ is rather arbitrary,
161: the $L_{\rm OH}$ values
162: for the OH kilomasers are well separated from the OHMs in Table
163: \ref{tab:HCNsample} by 2 orders of magnitude.
164: Three of the four OH kilomasers in this sample show both emission and
165: absorption. OH types marked with an asterisk are somewhat uncertain
166: and have been omitted from all subsequent analysis and figures.
167: We have included in Figure \ref{fig:IR_vs_CO} four additional OHMs
168: that have been detected in CO by \citet{solomon97} but have not yet been
169: observed in HCN: IRAS~03521+0028, 14070+0525, 16090$-$0139, and 18368+3549.
170:
171: %all belong to the class of Galactic-style
172: %maser emission associated with star formation, but simply scaled up a bit,
173: %and typically accompanying OH absorption in the same system (ref).
174: %We thus discriminate between the NGC~253, NGC~520, and M~82 kilomasers,
175: %which also show OH absorption, and NGC~1068, which does not.
176:
177: % [add an estimate of OH line luminosity in M82 and N253 in the table in
178: % parens, say, or with an asterisk? From \citet{henkel90} on kilomasers:
179: % Name, log(LOH), D, ref, Tab1 D, new log(LOH):
180: % NGC~253 -1.0 3.5 \citet{wg73} 2.5 -1.3
181: % NGC~520 -0.5 29 \citet{baan1985a} 31.1 -0.4
182: % M~82 -1.7 3.5 \citet{nguyen76} 3.4 -1.7
183: % IC~860 0.3 52 \citet{baan1989} --- not in HCN sample
184: % ]
185:
186: % [NGC 520 is abs+kilo --- change in plots, data file. DONE]
187:
188: \begin{figure}
189: \epsscale{1.2}
190: \plotone{f1.eps}
191: \caption{
192: %\scriptsize
193: IR luminosity versus CO line luminosity in
194: HCN-detected galaxies with known OH properties
195: from the GS04a sample.
196: The legend indicates symbols for OH megamasers,
197: OH kilomasers, OH absorbers, and objects with no
198: detected OH lines. The solid line is a linear
199: fit by \citet{gao2004b} to galaxies with $L_{\rm IR}<10^{11} L_\odot$
200: ($L_{\rm IR}= 33 L_{\rm CO}$ in units above), the dotted lines indicate
201: a constant total volume of molecular material, and the dashed
202: lines indicate the mean H$_2$ density derived from \citet{krumholz07}.
203: \label{fig:IR_vs_CO}}
204: \end{figure}
205:
206: \begin{figure}
207: \epsscale{1.2}
208: \plotone{f2.eps}
209: \caption{
210: %\scriptsize
211: IR luminosity versus $L_{\rm HCN}/L_{\rm CO}$,
212: a proxy for the dense gas fraction,
213: in HCN-detected galaxies with known OH properties
214: from the GS04a sample.
215: Symbols are identical to those used in Figure \ref{fig:IR_vs_CO}.
216: \label{fig:IR_vs_dense}}
217: \end{figure}
218:
219: \section{Results}\label{sec:results}
220:
221: % The correlation between the infrared luminosity $L_{\rm IR}$ and the
222: % CO line luminosity $L_{\rm CO}$ becomes nonlinear for the most vigorously
223: % star-forming galaxies, and all OHMs examined thus far are in the nonlinear
224: % regime, whereas OH absorbers are more uniformly distributed.
225:
226: Sorting the GS04a sample by OH type --- megamaser, kilomaser,
227: absorber, or non-detection ---
228: reveals striking properties of OHM host galaxies that set them apart from
229: other starburst galaxies.
230: Figure \ref{fig:IR_vs_CO} shows that OHMs comprise the majority
231: of the population that is offset from the
232: linear $L_{\rm IR}$-$L_{\rm CO}$ relation.
233: OH absorbers and kilomasers, however, generally follow the linear IR-CO
234: relation.
235: Using the relationship between $L_{\rm IR}/L_{\rm CO}$ and the mean
236: H$_2$ density, $\bar{n}$, derived from
237: Kennicutt-Schmidt laws by \citet[][Fig.\,2]{krumholz07}, we show in Figure
238: \ref{fig:IR_vs_CO} that all
239: OHMs in the sample are produced in starburst volumes of $10^7$--$10^8$~pc$^3$
240: (radii $\sim$130--290~pc) and that all but one OHM have extremely
241: high volume-averaged molecular densities, $\bar{n}=10^3$--$10^4$~cm$^{-3}$.
242: In fact, 7 of 10 objects in the HCN sample in this density range are OHMs and
243: one is a nonabsorbing OH kilomaser. Note that $\bar{n}$ is the {\it mean}
244: H$_2$ density; the clouds responsible for OHMs within these
245: regions must be significantly denser than the mean.
246: There are many nonmasing systems with high $L_{\rm IR}$ at
247: lower densities and larger volumes than the OHMs,
248: demonstrating that molecular density, not the IR radiation field, is the OHM
249: trigger.
250:
251: % [does this imply that the mol gas region/starburst in OHMs
252: % is more compact than in other galaxies? see \citet{krumholz07}
253: % Gas in OHMs must be concentrated and massive in order to reach the
254: % required mean density]
255:
256: Equally striking is the segregation of OHMs from nonmasing starbursts
257: in a plot of $L_{\rm IR}$ versus $L_{\rm HCN}/L_{\rm CO}$, a proxy for
258: dense molecular gas fraction \citep{gao2004b}.
259: Figures \ref{fig:IR_vs_dense} and \ref{fig:hists} show that
260: all 8 OHMs (and the nonabsorbing OH kilomaser)
261: have $L_{\rm HCN}/L_{\rm CO} > 0.07$. There are
262: also 2 OH absorbers and 5 OH nondetections this regime, so
263: OHMs comprise roughly half of this unusual population.
264: %, and make up $55\%$ of the population with higher cutoffs
265: There are no OHMs with $L_{\rm HCN}/L_{\rm CO}<0.07$,
266: but there are many other luminous systems,
267: including OH absorption systems and OH absorbers with
268: coincident kilomaser emission. Galaxies with OH absorption are fairly
269: uniformly distributed in $L_{\rm IR}$ and dense gas fraction,
270: % (Figures \ref{fig:IR_vs_dense} and \ref{fig:hists}),
271: indicating that OH abundance is not a factor in OHM formation.
272: The $\gtrsim50\%$ fraction of OHMs in dense starbursts
273: constrains OHM beaming be a minor contributor
274: to the OHM fraction in LIRGs, and we conclude that the
275: OHM emission solid angle must be greater than $2\pi$ steradians.
276:
277: % [remove OH kilo from hists figure?] done
278:
279: % Investigate and comment on line profiles (OH and HCN) --- if it is
280: % correct to use one to interpret the other, then the profiles should show
281: % similar velocity widths (phase space occupation), but not necessarily
282: % similar shapes. ---- Save this for later.
283:
284: % The HCN line luminosity correlates with the OH line with much scatter.
285: % (HCN and OH lines form in similar environments?) Hold off on this for
286: % later? This paper is a binary analysis (OHM or !OHM) rather than an
287: % investigation of properties or correlations.
288:
289: % Include Tdust hist? (CO? IR?) (proly incl CO in larger CO sample analysis)
290:
291: % [Fig 2: arrows are not plotted when both CO and HCN are limits (two non-d's)]
292: % Listed at ~ in GS04b table; leave as-is.
293:
294: %[Fig 3: push hist bins in first panel to show all OHMs with dense $>0.07$?
295: %Do I have a more recent plot on laptop?] no --- looks ratty
296:
297:
298: \section{Discussion}\label{sec:discussion}
299:
300: A dense gas trigger for OHM formation
301: is consistent with the modeling work by \citet{parra2005} showing
302: that the critical component for OHM formation is cloud-cloud overlap;
303: a starburst-scale high mean molecular density and
304: high dense gas fraction both provide the required overlap of
305: many dense clouds. What is not yet clear is whether OHM activity is a density
306: effect or simply a concentration effect. The rough size scales
307: bracketing all OHMs in Figure \ref{fig:IR_vs_CO} are also consistent
308: with the 100--200~pc OHM emission regions observed with VLBI
309: \citep[e.g.,][]{pihlstrom01,rovilos03}.
310:
311: % [small volumes, high densities, high dense gas fractions all consistent
312: % with VLBI observations and models requiring cloud-cloud overlap for
313: % stochastic low-gain maser amplification]
314:
315: It is somewhat surprising that significant differences between OHM hosts and
316: nonmasing systems are seen at all in unresolved observations
317: because masing nuclei are ``contaminated'' by nonmasing nuclei within mergers.
318: We expect that the observed differences between OHMs and nonmasing starbursts
319: would intensify in resolved observations. However,
320: high dipole moment molecules such as
321: HCN and CS may be good OHM location-selective tracers that obviate the need
322: to obtain subarcsecond resolution.
323:
324: It is certain that the OHM phase is transitory because star formation rates
325: found in these systems are sustainable for $10^7$--$10^8$~yr,
326: whereas the complete merging process requires of order $10^9$~yr.
327: What is not known, however, is whether this mode of star formation
328: is a universal, inevitable stage or an uncommon event in major galaxy mergers.
329: Tidal torques spike multiple times during
330: mergers, and many major mergers are likely to experience a ULIRG phase,
331: but will most mergers experience the even more extreme OHM phase?
332: The simple
333: observation that about $20\%$ of LIRGs with $L_{\rm FIR} > 10^{11.2}L_\odot$
334: show OHM activity \citep{darling02a} suggests that
335: if {\it all} LIRGs experience an OHM stage, then the OHM lifetime is of
336: order $20\%$ of the LIRG lifetime. If only a subset of LIRGs have an OHM
337: stage, then the OHM lifetime must be longer. It is also possible that
338: OHMs draw from a larger ``pool'' of galaxies that begin at lower $L_{\rm FIR}$
339: than the LIRG sample, which would allow a shorter OHM lifetime.
340: Constraints on the OHM lifetime are clearly critical to understanding
341: OHMs and the modes of star formation in major galaxy mergers.
342:
343: % [kilomasers: \citet{henkel1990} suggest that OH kilomasers represent a
344: % post-OHM stage; morphology suggests that NGC~253, M~82, and NGC~1068
345: % are not post-mergers but simply spirals with starbursts
346: % (1068 is a disk galaxy with nuclear starburst, winds, etc.)
347: % (M82 is involved in an interaction with M81 --- HI tidal bridges, etc ---
348: % might call it a first-pass early merger),
349: % but NGC~520 is an intermediate stage
350: % merger (Hibbard \& van Gorkom 1996) or a young merger (Read \& Ponman 1998)
351:
352: % [OH absorbers: range of types, from late-stage mergers like NGC~6240...]
353:
354:
355: \section{Conclusions}
356:
357: We have identified three closely related
358: physical properties that differentiate OHMs
359: from other starburst galaxies:
360: OHM hosts have the highest mean molecular gas densities,
361: they are a distinct population in the nonlinear part of the IR-CO relation,
362: and they
363: reside in galaxies with exceptionally high dense molecular gas fractions.
364: We conclude that molecular gas must be concentrated and massive in order to
365: reach the mean density required to form an OHM in a galactic nucleus.
366: IR luminosity is not a condition for OHM formation; both star formation and
367: OHM activity are consequences of the tidal density enhancements accompanying
368: galaxy interactions.
369: The fraction of OHMs in dense starbursts
370: constrains OHM beaming to be a minor effect:
371: OHM solid angle emission must be greater than $2\pi$ steradians.
372: These conclusions are in good agreement with the stochastic cloud-cloud overlap
373: amplification model by \citet{parra2005}.
374: The rather uniform distribution of OH absorbers in IR, HCN, and CO luminosity
375: suggests that OH abundance is not a significant factor in OHM formation.
376: The main caveat to these conclusions is that
377: the sample of OHMs with HCN observations remains small, and should be
378: expanded, particularly to higher redshifts to include ``typical'' OHMs.
379:
380: OHMs are signposts of the most intense, compact, and
381: unusual modes of star formation in the local universe, and
382: surveys for OHMs will now provide detailed information
383: about the detected host galaxies and their mode of star formation.
384: The missing datum required for a complete interpretation of
385: OHM surveys, however, is the OHM lifetime.
386:
387: % The clouds responsible for OHM emission likely have
388: % $n({\rm H}_2) > 10^4$~cm$^{-3}$.
389:
390:
391: \acknowledgements
392: This work benefited significantly from comments by the anonymous referee.
393: This research has made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED),
394: which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of
395: Technology, under contract with NASA.
396:
397:
398: \begin{thebibliography}{}
399: %\bibitem[Araya\etal(2004)Araya, Baan, \& Hofner]{araya2004} Araya, E.,
400: % Baan, W. A., \& Hofner, P. 2004, \apjs, 154, 541
401: %\bibitem[Baan(1985)]{baan1985} Baan, W. A. 1985, Nature, 315, 26
402: \bibitem[Baan \etal(1985a)]{baan1985a} Baan, W. A., Haschick, A. D.,
403: Buckley, D. \& Schmelz, J. T. 1985, \apj, 293, 394
404: \bibitem[Baan \etal(1985b)Baan, Haschick, \& Schmelz]{baan1985b}
405: Baan, W. A., Haschick, A. D., \& Schmelz, J. T. 1985, \apj, 298, L51
406: \bibitem[Baan \etal(1989)Baan, Haschick, \& Henkel]{baan1989}
407: Baan, W. A., Haschick, A. D., \& Henkel, C. 1989, \apj, 346, 680
408: \bibitem[Baan(1989)]{b1989} Baan, W. A. 1989, \apj, 338, 804
409: \bibitem[Baan \etal(1992)Baan, Haschick, \& Henkel]{baan1992}
410: Baan, W. A., Haschick, A., \& Henkel, C. 1992, \aj, 103, 728
411: %\bibitem[Baan \etal(1992b)Baan, Rhoads, \& Haschick]{baan1992b}
412: % Baan, W. A., Rhoads, J. \& Haschick, A. D. 1992, \apj, 401, 508
413: \bibitem[Baan, Salzer, \& LeWinter (1998)]{baan1998}
414: {Baan, W. A., Salzer, J. J., \& LeWinter, R. D.} 1998, \apj, 509, 633
415: \bibitem[Baan \& Kl\"{o}ckner(2006)]{baan06}
416: {Baan, W.A. \& Kl\"{o}ckner, H.-R.} 2006, \aap, 449, 559
417: \bibitem[Bottinelli \etal(1990)]{bot1990} Bottinelli, L., Gouguenheim, L.,
418: Le Squeren, A. M., Martin, J. M., \& Paturel, G. 1990, IAU Circ.\ 4977
419: \bibitem[Darling \& Giovanelli(2002a)]{darling02a}
420: {Darling, J. \& Giovanelli, R.} 2002a, \aj, 124, 100
421: \bibitem[Darling \& Giovanelli(2006)]{darling06}
422: {Darling, J. \& Giovanelli, R.} 2006, \aj, 132, 2596
423: \bibitem[Gallimore \etal(1996)]{gallimore1996} Gallimore, J. F.,
424: Baum, S. A., O'Dea, C. P., Brinks, E., \& Pedlar, A. 1996, \apj, 462, 740
425: \bibitem[Gao \& Solomon(2004a)]{gao2004a} Gao, Y. \& Solomon, P. M. 2004a,
426: \apjs, 152, 63 (GS04a)
427: \bibitem[Gao \& Solomon(2004b)]{gao2004b} Gao, Y. \& Solomon, P. M. 2004b,
428: \apj, 606, 271
429: \bibitem[Haschick \& Baan(1985)]{haschick1985} Haschick, A. D. \& Baan, W. A.
430: 1985, Nature, 314, 144
431: \bibitem[Henkel \& Wilson(1990)]{henkel1990} Henkel, C. \& Wilson, T. L.
432: 1990, \aap, 229, 431
433: %\bibitem[Henkel \etal(1994)]{henkel94} Henkel, C., Whiteoak, J. B., \&
434: % Mauersberger, R. 1994, \aap, 284, 17
435: \bibitem[Krumholz \& Thompson(2007)]{krumholz07} Krumholz, M. R. \&
436: Thompson, T. A. 2007, \apj, submitted (astro-ph/0704.0792)
437: \bibitem[Lo(2005)]{lo05} {Lo, K. Y.} 2005, \araa, 43, 625
438: \bibitem[Lockett \& Elitzur(2007)]{lockett07}
439: Lockett, P., \& Elitzur, M. 2007, \apj, submitted
440: \bibitem[Martin \etal(1988)]{martin1988} Martin, J. M.,
441: Le Squeren, A. M., Bottinelli, L., Gouguenheim, L., \& Dennefeld, M.
442: 1988, \aap, 201, L13
443: \bibitem[Martin \etal(1989)]{martin1989} Martin, J. M.,
444: Le Squeren, A. M., Bottinelli, L., Gouguenheim, L., \& Dennefeld, M.
445: 1989, \aap, 208, 39
446: \bibitem[Nguyen-Q-Rieu \etal(1976)]{nguyen76} Nguyen-Q-Rieu, Mebold, U.,
447: Winnberg, A., Guibert, J., \& Booth, R. 1976, \aap, 52, 467
448: %\bibitem[Nguyen-Q-Rieu \etal(1992)]{nguyen92} Nguyen-Q-Rieu, Jackson, J. M.,
449: % Henkel, C., Truon-Bach, \& Mauersberger, R. 1992, \apj, 399, 521
450: \bibitem[Norris \etal(1989)]{norris1989} Norris, R. P., Gardner, F. F.,
451: Whiteoak, J. B., Allen, D. A., \& Roche, P. F. 1989, \mnras, 237, 673
452: \bibitem[Parra \etal(2005)]{parra2005}
453: {Parra, R., Conway, J. E., Elitzur, M., \& Pihlstrom. Y. M.}
454: 2005, \aap, 443, 383
455: \bibitem[Pihlstr\"{o}m \etal\ (2001)]{pihlstrom01}
456: Pihlstr\"{o}m, Y. M., Conway, J. E., Booth, R. S., Diamond, P. J.,
457: \& Polatidis, A. G. 2001, \aap, 377, 413
458: \bibitem[Rovilos \etal\ (2003)]{rovilos03}
459: Rovilos, E., Diamond, P., Lonsdale, C. J., Lonsdale, C. J., \& Smith, H. E.
460: 2003, \mnras, 342, 373
461: \bibitem[Rickard \etal(1982)Rickard, Turner, \& Bania]{rickard82}
462: Rickard, L. J., Turner, B. E., \& Bania, T. M. 1982, \apj, 252, 147
463: \bibitem[Schmelz \etal(1986)]{schmelz1986} Schmelz, J. T., Baan, W. A.,
464: Haschick, A. D., \& Eder, J. 1986, \aj, 92, 1291
465: \bibitem[Schmelz \& Baan(1988)]{schmelz1988} Schmelz, J. T. \& Baan, W. A.
466: 1988, \aj, 95, 672
467: %\bibitem[Solomon \etal(1992)]{solomon92} Solomon, P. M., Downes, D., \&
468: % Radford, S. J. E. 1992, \apj, 387, L55
469: \bibitem[Solomon \etal(1997)]{solomon97} Solomon, P. M., Downes, D.,
470: Radford, S. J. E., \& Barrett, J. W. 1997, \apj, 478, 144
471: \bibitem[Staveley-Smith \etal(1992)]{ss92} Staveley-Smith, L., Norris, R. P.,
472: Chapman, J. M., Allen, D. A., Whiteoak, J. B., \& Roy, A. L. 1992, \mnras,
473: 258, 725
474: \bibitem[Unger \etal(1986)]{unger1986} Unger, S. W., Chapman, J. M.,
475: Cohen, R. J., Hawarden, T. G., \& Mountain, C. M. 1986, \mnras, 220, 1P
476: \bibitem[Vignali \etal(2005)]{vignali05}
477: {Vignali, C. Brandt, W. N., Comastri, A., \& Darling, J.}
478: 2005, \mnras, 364, 99
479: \bibitem[Whiteoak \& Gardner(1973)]{wg73} Whiteoak, J. B. \& Gardner, F. F.
480: 1973, \aplett, 15, 211
481: \end{thebibliography}
482:
483:
484: \begin{deluxetable}{llccccccc}
485: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
486: \tablecaption{OH Properties of HCN-Detected Galaxies\label{tab:HCNsample}}
487: \tablewidth{0pt}
488: \tablehead{
489: \colhead{IRAS Name} &
490: \colhead{Other Name} &
491: \colhead{$D_L$} &
492: \colhead{$L_{\rm IR}$} &
493: \colhead{$L_{\rm CO}$} &
494: \colhead{$L_{\rm HCN}$} &
495: \colhead{OH Type\tablenotemark{a}} &
496: \colhead{$\log L_{\rm OH}$} &
497: \colhead{Ref} \\
498: \colhead{} &
499: \colhead{} &
500: \colhead{(Mpc)} &
501: \colhead{($10^{10} L_\odot$)} &
502: \colhead{($10^8$ K km s$^{-1}$ pc$^2$)} &
503: \colhead{($10^8$ K km s$^{-1}$ pc$^2$)} &
504: \colhead{} &
505: \colhead{($L_\odot$)}
506: }
507: \startdata
508: 00450$-$2533 & NGC253 & 2.5 & 2.1 & 4.6 & 0.27 & abs+kilo& ($-$1.3) & 1\\
509: 01053$-$1746 & IC1623 & 81.7 & 46.7 &130.5 & 8.5 & non & \nodata & 2\\
510: 01219+0331 & NGC520 & 31.1 & 8.5 & 16.3 & 0.64 & abs+kilo & ($-$0.4) & 3\\
511: 01403+1323 & NGC660 & 14.0 & 3.7 & 7.3 &$>$0.26& abs& \nodata & 4\\
512: %01484+2220 & NGC695 & & 133.5 & 46.6 & 0 92.9 & 0 4.3 & 0 0.046 & 0 1080 & 34 & ? & \nodata \\
513: 02071+3857 & NGC828 & 75.4 & 22.4 & 58.5 & 1.3 & non & \nodata & 2 \\
514: %02114+0456 & Mrk1027 & & 123.5 & 25.7 & 0 41.7 & 0 1.89 & 0 0.045 & 0 1350 & 37 & ? & \nodata \\
515: 02193+4207 & NGC891 & 10.3 & 2.6 & 11.0 & 0.25 & non & \nodata & 2 \\
516: 02360$-$0653 & NGC1022& 21.1 & 2.6 & 4.2 & 0.20 & non & \nodata & 2 \\
517: 02391+0013 & NGC1055& 14.8 & 2.1 & 13.3 &$<$0.37&non & \nodata & 5\\
518: 02401$-$0013 & NGC1068& 16.7 & 28.3 & 20.7 & 3.61 & kilo & ($-$0.3) & 6\\
519: 02526$-$0023 & NGC1144&117.3 & 25.1 &108.9 & 2.67 & non & \nodata & 2 \\
520: 03317$-$3618 & NGC1365& 20.8 & 12.9 & 58.7 & 3.10 & non*& \nodata & 7\\
521: 03419+6756 & IC342 & 3.7 & 1.4 & 9.5 & 0.47 & non & \nodata & 2 \\
522: %04170+7510 & NGC1530 & & 35.4 & 4.7 & 0 23.0 & 0 0.49 & 0 0.021 & 0 960 & 29 & ? & \nodata & 2 \\
523: 04315$-$0840 & NGC1614& 63.2 & 38.6 & 24.5 & 1.25 & non & \nodata & 2 \\
524: 05083+7936 & VIIZw31&223.4 & 87.1 &125.0 & 9.8 & non & \nodata & 2 \\
525: 05189$-$2524 & \nodata&170.3 &118.1 & 67.0 & 6.2 & non*& \nodata & 7\\
526: 06106+7822 & NGC2146& 15.2 & 10.0 & 12.5 & 0.96 & non & \nodata & 2 \\
527: 07101+8550 & NGC2276& 35.5 & 6.2 & 10.2 & 0.40 & non & \nodata & 2 \\
528: 09126+4432 & Arp55 &162.7 & 45.7 &125.0 & 3.8 & non & \nodata & 2 \\
529: 09293+2143 & NGC2903& 6.2 & 0.83 & 2.3 &$>$0.09& non & \nodata & 2 \\
530: 09320+6134 & UGC05101&160.2& 89.2 & 50.8 & 10.0 & OHM & 1.61 & 8 \\
531: 09517+6954 & M82 & 3.4 & 4.6 & 5.7 & 0.30 & abs+kilo & ($-$1.7) & 9\\
532: 09585+5555 & NGC3079& 16.2 & 4.3 & 24.0 &$\sim$1.0& abs & \nodata & 10\\
533: %10126+7339 & NGC3147 & & 39.5 & 6.2 & 0 59.0 & 0 0.90 & 0 0.015 & 0 690 & 26 & ? & \nodata \\
534: 10566+2448 & \nodata&173.3 & 93.8 & 61.5 & 10.2 & non & \nodata & 2 \\
535: 11010+4107 & Arp148 &143.3 & 36.5 &$>$47.0& 4.0 & OHM & 1.98 & 11\\
536: 11085+5556 & NGC3556& 10.6 & 1.35 &$>$4.5&$>$0.09& non& \nodata & 2 \\
537: 11176+1315 & NGC3627& 7.6 & 1.26 & 4.4 &$>$0.08& non & \nodata & 12 \\
538: 11176+1351 & NGC3628& 7.6 & 1.01 & 7.1 & 0.24 & abs & \nodata & 4\\
539: 11257+5850 & Arp299 & 43.0 & 62.8 & 29.0 & 2.1 & OHM & 1.38 & 13\\
540: 11460+4859 & NGC3893& 13.9 & 1.15 & 4.1 & 0.23 & non & \nodata & 2 \\
541: 11578$-$0049 & NGC4030& 17.1 & 2.14 & 15.2 & 0.54 & non*& \nodata & 2 \\
542: 11596+6224 & NGC4041& 18.0 & 1.70 & 3.9 & 0.18 & non & \nodata & 2 \\
543: 12239+3129 & NGC4414& 9.3 & 0.81 & 4.6 & 0.16 & non & \nodata & 5 \\
544: 12396+3249 & NGC4631& 8.1 & 2.0 & 2.3 &$\sim$0.08&non&\nodata& 5 \\
545: 12540+5708 & Mrk231 &170.3 &303.5 & 82.2 & 18.6 & OHM & 2.87 & 14\\
546: 12542+2157 & NGC4826& 4.7 & 0.26 & 1.3 & $>$0.04 & non & \nodata & 12 \\
547: 13025$-$4911 & NGC4945& 3.7 & 2.6 & 5.8 &$\sim$0.27& abs & \nodata & 1\\
548: 13086+3719 & NGC5005& 14.0 & 1.4 & 8.2 & 0.41 & non* & \nodata & 2 \\
549: 13135+4217 & NGC5055& 7.3 & 1.1 & 8.6 & $>$0.10 & non & \nodata & 2 \\
550: 13183+3423 & Arp193 & 92.7 & 37.3 & 39.8 & 9.5 & abs & \nodata & 5 \\
551: 13229$-$2934 & NGC5135& 51.7 & 13.8 & 31.3 & 2.73 & non*& \nodata & 7\\
552: \nodata & M51 & 9.6 & 4.2 & 19.4 & 0.50 & non & \nodata & 2 \\
553: 13341$-$2936 & M83 & 3.7 & 1.4 & 8.1 & 0.35 & non*& \nodata & 15\\
554: 13428+5608 & Mrk273 &152.2 &129.9 & 65.0 & 15.2 & OHM & 2.53 & 14\\
555: 14306+5808 & NGC5678& 27.8 & 3.0 & 17.2 & 0.75 & non & \nodata & 2 \\
556: 14376$-$0004 & NGC5713& 24.0 & 4.2 & 8.1 & 0.22 & non & \nodata & 2 \\
557: 14514+0344 & NGC5775& 21.3 & 3.8 & 10.9 & 0.57 & abs*& \nodata & 5 \\
558: 15327+2340 & Arp220 & 74.7 &140.2 & 78.5 & 9.2 & OHM & 2.58 & 13\\
559: 16504+0228 & NGC6240& 98.1 & 61.2 & 79.0 & 11.0 & abs & \nodata & 3\\
560: 17208$-$0014 & \nodata&173.1 &234.5 &146.9 & 37.6 & OHM & 3.02 & 16\\
561: 18293$-$3413 & \nodata& 72.1 & 53.7 & 85.5 & 4.03 & non& \nodata & 7\\
562: 18425+6036 & NGC6701& 56.8 & 11.2 & 34.0 & 1.38 & abs & \nodata & 17\\
563: \nodata & NGC6921& 60.3 & 11.4 & 17.5 &$\sim$2.81& non& \nodata & 5 \\
564: 20338+5958 & NGC6946& 5.5 & 1.6 & 9.2 & 0.49 & non & \nodata & 2 \\
565: 21453$-$3511 & NGC7130& 65.0 & 21.4 & 44.9 & 3.27 & non& \nodata & 18\\
566: 22132$-$3705 & IC5179 & 46.2 & 14.1 &$\sim$26.4&3.42&non*& \nodata & 7\\
567: 22347+3409 & NGC7331& 15.0 & 3.5 &$>$10.7&$>$0.44& non & \nodata & 2 \\
568: 23007+0836 & NGC7469& 67.5 & 40.7 & 37.1 & 2.19 & abs*& \nodata & 5\tablenotemark{b} \\
569: 23024+1203 & NGC7479& 35.2 & 7.4 & 26.7 & 1.12 & non & \nodata & 5 \\
570: 23365+3604 & \nodata&266.1 &142.0 & 85.0 & 15.0 & OHM & 2.45 & 19\\
571: 23488+1949 & NGC7771& 60.4 & 21.4 & 90.8 & 6.5 & non & \nodata & 5 \\
572: 23488+2018 & Mrk331 & 75.3 & 26.9 & 52.1 & 3.35 & non & \nodata & 2\\
573: \enddata
574: \tablecomments{Columns 2--6 are from Table 1 of \citet{gao2004b}.
575: References refer to the OH type and luminosity.
576: %(some of the references are not the only ones; for eg, 2 has
577: %much overlap with 5).
578: Estimates of the emission line luminosity of OH kilomasers,
579: corrected for $D_L$ listed in Col.\ 3 and absorption,
580: are listed in Column 8 in parentheses.}
581: \tablerefs{
582: %(BRH92) \citet{baan1992b};
583: (1) \citet{wg73};
584: (2) \citet{baan1992};
585: (3) \citet{baan1985a};
586: (4) \citet{rickard82};
587: (5) \citet{schmelz1986};
588: (6) \citet{gallimore1996};
589: (7) \citet{norris1989};
590: (8) \citet{henkel1990};
591: (9) \citet{nguyen76};
592: (10) \citet{haschick1985};
593: (11) \citet{martin1988};
594: (12) \citet{schmelz1988};
595: (13) \citet{baan1989};
596: (14) \citet{baan1985b};
597: (15) \citet{unger1986};
598: (16) \citet{martin1989};
599: (17) \citet{b1989};
600: (18) \citet{ss92};
601: (19) \citet{bot1990}.}
602: \tablenotetext{a}{OH types refer to:
603: ``abs+kilo'' for OH absorption and kilomaser emission;
604: ``kilo'' for OH kilomaser emission;
605: ``abs'' for OH absorption;
606: ``non'' for no OH lines detected; and
607: ``OHM'' for OH megamaser emission.
608: An asterisk (*) indicates that OH non-detections
609: have a large rms noise level compared to the typical peak maser line,
610: or that the detection of absorption is marginal (3$\sigma$). These
611: objects are not plotted in Figures \ref{fig:IR_vs_CO}--\ref{fig:hists}
612: or used for statistics in the text.}
613: \tablenotetext{b}{NGC 7469 is listed by \citet{baan1992} as a non-detection,
614: but \citet{schmelz1986} claims a 3$\sigma$ detection of OH absorption in a
615: spectrum with an rms noise 3 times smaller than \citet{baan1992}.}
616: \end{deluxetable}
617:
618:
619: \clearpage
620:
621:
622: \begin{figure*}
623: \plotone{f3.eps}
624: \caption{
625: %\scriptsize
626: Number and fraction of OH megamasers, OH absorbers, and non-OHMs
627: (including absorbers) versus $L_{\rm HCN}$ and $L_{\rm HCN}/L_{\rm CO}$, a
628: proxy for dense gas fraction.
629: The bold line indicates the OHMs, the solid line indicates the non-OHMs, and
630: the dotted line shows the OH absorbers, as indicated in the left panel.
631: The upper panels indicate the fraction of the total sample that shows
632: either OH absorption or emission.
633: \label{fig:hists}}
634: \end{figure*}
635:
636:
637:
638: \end{document}
639:
640: