1: \documentstyle[epsfig]{aa}
2: %\documentstyle[epsfig,referee]{aa}
3: %\documentclass[referee]{aa}\usepackage{epsfig}
4: %\documentclass{aa} \usepackage{epsfig}
5:
6: \newcommand{\partials}[2]{\frac{\partial #1}{\partial #2}}
7: \newcommand{\pfrac}[2]{\left(\frac{#1}{#2}\right)}
8:
9: \def\Mesz{M\'esz\'aros~}
10: \def\Pacz{Paczy\'nski~}
11:
12: \def\beq{\begin{equation}}
13: \def\enq{\end{equation}}
14: \def\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}
15: \def\ena{\end{eqnarray}}
16: \def\bec{\begin{center}}
17: \def\enc{\end{center}}
18: \def\etal{{et al.~}}
19: \def\eps{\epsilon}
20:
21: \def\mujy{\hbox{$\mu$Jy}}
22: \def\flux{\hbox{ergs~cm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$Hz$^{-1}$}}
23: \def\ergcm2si{\hbox{ergs~cm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$}}
24:
25: \begin{document}
26:
27: \title{XMM-Newton studies of a massive cluster of galaxies:
28: \\
29: RXCJ2228.6+2036}
30:
31: \author{S.M.~Jia\inst{1,2}, H.~B\"{o}hringer\inst{1}, E.~Pointecouteau\inst{3},
32: Y.~Chen\inst{2}, and Y.Y.~Zhang\inst{4}}
33:
34: %\offprints{S.M.~Jia (E-mail: jiasm@mail.ihep.ac.cn)}
35:
36: \institute{
37: Max-Planck-Institut f\"{u}r extraterrestrische Physik, 85748 Garching, Germany
38: \\
39: e-mail: jiasm@ihep.ac.cn
40: \and
41: Key Laboratory of Particle Astrophysics, Institute of High Energy Physics,
42: Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, P.R. China
43: \and
44: CESR-CNRS, 9 Av. du Colonel Roche, 31028 Toulouse, France
45: \and
46: Argelander-Institut f\"{u}r Astronomie, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universit\"{a}t
47: Bonn, Auf dem Huegel 71, D-53121 Bonn, Germany
48: }
49:
50: \date{Received / accepted }
51:
52: \abstract{ We present the X-ray properties of a massive cluster of galaxies
53: (RXCJ2228.6+2036 at $z=0.421$) using {\it XMM-Newton} data. The X-ray mass
54: modeling is based on the temperature and density distributions of the
55: intracluster medium derived using a deprojection method. We found that
56: RXCJ2228.6+2036 is a hot cluster ($T_{500}=8.92^{+1.78}_{-1.32}$ keV) showing
57: a cooling flow rate of $12.0^{+56.0}_{-12.0}$ M$_{\odot}$yr$^{-1}$ based on
58: spectral fitting within the cooling flow radius ($r_{cool}=147\pm10$ kpc). The
59: total cluster mass is $M_{500}=(1.19\pm0.35)\times10^{15}$ M$_{\odot}$ and the
60: mean gas mass fraction is $f_{gas}=0.165\pm0.045$ at $r_{500}=1.61\pm0.16$ Mpc.
61: We discussed the PSF-correction effect on the spectral analysis and found that
62: for the annular width we chose the PSF-corrected temperatures are consistent
63: with those without PSF-correction. We observed a remarkable agreement between
64: X-ray and SZ results, which is of prime importance for the future SZ survey.
65: RXCJ2228.6+2036 obeys the empirical scaling relations found in general massive
66: galaxy clusters (e.g. $S$--$T$, $M$--$T$, $L$--$T$ and $M$--$Y$) after
67: accounting for self-similar evolution.
68:
69: \keywords{galaxies: clusters: individual: RXCJ2228.6+2036 ---
70: X-rays: galaxies:clusters}}
71:
72: \titlerunning{XMM-Newton studies of a massive cluster of galaxies:
73: RXCJ2228.6+2036} \authorrunning{S.M. Jia et al.}
74:
75: \maketitle
76:
77: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
78: \section{Introduction}
79: The gravitational growth of fluctuations in the matter density distribution can
80: be traced by the evolution of the galaxy cluster mass function (e.g. Schuecker
81: et al. 2003). The hot and distant clusters are at the upper end of the mass
82: distribution, thus they can be used to probe the cosmic evolution of
83: large-scale structure and are therefore fundamental probes for cosmology. But
84: to date still very few hot and distant clusters are known. Therefore, it is
85: important to study such clusters in detail, especially in X-ray.
86:
87: RXCJ2228.6+2036 is one of the distant ({\it z} = 0.421) and X-ray luminous
88: clusters of galaxies in the northern sky. It is suspected to be massive and hot,
89: and was well recognized as an extended X-ray source in the ROSAT All-Sky Survey,
90: included in both the NORAS galaxy cluster survey (B\"{o}hringer et al. 2000)
91: and the ROSAT Brightest Cluster Sample (Ebeling et al. 2000).
92:
93: The first combined SZ versus X-ray analysis for RXCJ2228.5+2036 is based on the
94: SZ data from the Nobeyama Radio Observatory (NRO) 45 m radio telescope and the
95: X-ray data from ROSAT/HRI. It shows that RXCJ2228.6+2036 is a hot and massive
96: cluster with $T = 10.4 \pm 1.8$ keV, $M_{tot}(r<R_v=r_{178}=2.9$ Mpc) =
97: $(1.8\pm0.4)\times10^{15}$ M$_{\odot}$, and with a gas mass fraction of $f_{gas}
98: = 0.22 \pm 0.06$ (Pointecouteau et al. 2002). Recently, LaRoque et al.
99: (2006) performed the {\it Chandra} X-ray versus OVRO/BIMA interferometric SZ
100: effect measurements for the same cluster, giving $T = 8.43^{+0.78}_{-0.71}$
101: keV, $f_{gas} = 0.138 \pm 0.009$ from the X-ray data, and $f_{gas} =
102: 0.188^{+0.035}_{-0.031}$ from the SZ data at $r_{2500}$. RXCJ2228.6+2036, as one
103: of the clusters in the sample of X-ray luminous galaxy clusters with both X-ray
104: ({\it Chandra}) and SZ observations in Morandi et al. (2007), has a
105: temperature of $T = 6.86^{+0.89}_{-0.71}$ keV and a total mass of
106: $M_{tot}=(4.90\pm4.35)\times10^{14}$ M$_{\odot}$ at $r_{500}=1033 \pm 464$
107: kpc. However, the above results are all based on the mass modeling under the
108: assumption of isothermality of the ICM. The {\it XMM-Newton} EPIC instruments
109: have both high spatial and spectral resolutions and a large field of view, and
110: are therefore suitable for a spatially resolved spectral analysis. We make use
111: of {\it XMM-Newton} observations to carry on a detailed study of RXCJ2228.6+2036
112: based on the X-ray mass modeling using a spatially resolved radial temperature
113: distribution and perform a detailed X-ray versus SZ comparison.
114:
115: The structure of this paper is as follows: Sect. 2 describes the data,
116: background subtraction method and spectral deprojection technique. Sect. 3
117: presents the spectral measurements using different models to derive the radial
118: temperature profile, cooling time and mass deposition rate. In Sect. 4 we show
119: the radial electron density profile and X-ray mass modeling. In Sect. 5 we
120: discuss the impact of the PSF correction on the spectral analysis, and compare
121: RXCJ2228.6+2036 to the SZ measurements and the empirical scaling relations for
122: massive galaxy clusters. We draw our conclusion in Sect. 6.
123:
124: Throughout this paper, unless explicitly stated otherwise, we use the 0.5-10
125: keV energy band in our spectral analysis. The cosmological model used is
126: $H_0$ = $70$ km s$^{-1}${Mpc}$^{-1}$, $\Omega_m$ = 0.3, and $\Omega_{\Lambda}$
127: = 0.7, in which 1$^{\prime}$ corresponds to 332.7 kpc at the distance of
128: RXCJ2228.6+2036.
129:
130:
131: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
132: \section{Observation and data reduction}
133: \subsection{Data preparation}
134:
135: RXCJ2228.6+2036 has been observed for 26 ksec in November 2003 by
136: {\it XMM-Newton} and its observation ID is 0147890101. For our purpose, we only
137: use EPIC data (MOS1, MOS2 and pn). The observations are performed with a thin
138: filter and in the extended full frame mode for pn and the full frame mode for
139: MOS. Throughout this analysis, we only use the events with FLAG=0, and with
140: PATTERN$\le$4 for pn and PATTERN$\le$12 for MOS. The reduction was performed
141: in SAS 7.1.0.
142:
143: The light curve of the observation shows some flares (i) in the hard band
144: (above 10 keV for MOS and above 12 keV for pn), possibly caused by the
145: particle background, and (ii) in the soft band (0.3-10 keV), possibly due to
146: the episodes of `soft proton flares' (De Luca \& Molendi 2004). Therefore both
147: the hard and the soft bands are used to select the good time intervals
148: (GTI) as described in Zhang et al. (2006). The GTI screening procedure gives us
149: 22 ks MOS1 data, 22 ks MOS2 data, and 18 ks pn data.
150:
151: We applied the SAS task {\it edetect\underline{~}chain} to detect the point
152: sources {\bf (the radius of the point sources is $0.6'$ containing 93\% flux
153: from the point source)}, and excised all of them from the cluster region.
154: Then, a SAS command {\it evigweight} was used to create the vignetting weighted
155: column in the event list to account for the vignetting correction for the
156: effective area.
157:
158: Due to read-out time delay, the pn data require a correction for the
159: Out-of-time (OOT) events. We created the simulated OOT event file and used it
160: to account for this (see Str\"{u}der et al. 2001 ) in our analysis.
161:
162: \subsection{Background subtraction}
163: The {\it XMM-Newton} background normally consists of the following two
164: components. i) Particle background: high energy particles such as cosmic-rays
165: pass through the satellite and deposit a fraction of their energy on the
166: detector. It dominates at high energies and shows no vignetting. ii) Cosmic
167: X-ray Background (CXB): the CXB varies across the sky (Snowden et al. 1997).
168: It is more important at low energies and shows a vignetting effect.
169:
170: We choose the blank sky accumulations in the Chandra Deep Field South (CDFS)
171: as the background (Zhang et al. 2007), which was also observed with the thin
172: filter. We applied the same reduction procedure to the CDFS as to the cluster
173: in the same detector coordinates, and the effective exposure time we obtained
174: for CDFS is 54 ks for pn, 61 ks for MOS1 and 61 ks for MOS2. RXCJ2228.6+2036
175: is a distant cluster ($z=0.421$), {\bf and we estimated that the signal-to-noise
176: ratio of the region $6'<R<6.5'$ is about 20\%, so we can approximately assume
177: that the emission of the cluster only covers the inner part of the field of
178: view ($R<6'$)}. The outer region ($6.5'<R<8'$) can thus be used to monitor the
179: residual background. Here we applied a double-background subtraction method to
180: correct for these two kinds of background components as used in Arnaud et al.
181: (2002). First we estimate the ratio of the particle background, $\alpha$,
182: between RXCJ2228.6+2036 and CDFS from the total count rate in the high energy
183: band (10-12 keV for MOS and 12-14 keV for pn), as described in Pointecouteau et
184: al. (2004). $S_0$ and $B_0$ are the background spectra of the cluster and CDFS
185: in the region of $6.5'<r<8'$ with an area of $A_0$, and $S_i$ and $B_i$ for
186: spectra in the $i$th ring of the cluster and CDFS with an area of $A_i$. Then
187: the cluster spectrum, after the double-background subtraction, $S(i)$ is (e.g.
188: Jia et al. 2006, Zhang et al. 2006):
189: \begin{equation}
190: S(i)=S_i-\alpha B_i-\frac{A_i}{A_0}(S_0-\alpha B_0)
191: \end{equation}
192:
193: \subsection{Spectral deprojection}
194: The combined image of MOS1 and MOS2 in the energy band 0.5-10 keV is shown in
195: Fig. 1. It is corrected for vignetting and smoothed with a maximum Gaussian
196: smoothing size of $\sigma = 5$ pixels. As shown in this figure, the X-ray
197: emission of RXCJ2228.6+2036 appears to be extended and almost symmetric except
198: for some bright point sources (which were subtracted before the spectrum
199: extraction, see Sect. 2.1). We extract the spectra from annular regions
200: centered on the emission peak, and the width of each ring is determined
201: according to the criterion described in Zhang et al. (2007): $\sim$2000 net
202: counts per bin in 2-7 keV to get a temperature with $\sim$15\% uncertainty.
203: Considering the PSF (Point Spread Function) effect of {\it XMM-Newton} EPIC,
204: whose Full Width at Half Maximum (FWHM) is $5''$ for MOS and 6$\arcsec$ for pn,
205: the minimum width of each ring was set at $0.5'$. We thus obtained 5 annuli to
206: extract spectra out to $6'$.
207:
208: \begin{figure}
209: \centerline{\psfig{file=mos_merge.ps,width=8cm}}
210: \caption{The combined image of MOS1 and MOS2 of RXCJ2228.6+2036 ($12'\times12'$)
211: corrected for vignetting and smoothed with a maximum Gaussian smoothing size
212: of $\sigma = 5$ pixels.}
213: \end{figure}
214:
215: The deprojected spectra are calculated by subtracting all the contributions
216: from the outer regions. Within each radial range, we assume the same spectrum
217: per unit volume. The deprojected spectrum of the $i$th shell is then
218: calculated by subtracting the contributions from the $i$+1th shell to the
219: outmost one (e.g. Matsushita et al. 2002 and Nulsen \& B\"{o}hringer 1995).
220: The detailed calculation procedures are described as in Jia et al. (2004,
221: 2006):
222: \begin{equation}
223: D(i)=\left[S(i)-\sum_{k=i+1}^{N}C_v(k,i) \cdot D(k)\right]/C_v(i,i),
224: \end{equation}
225: here $D(i)$ is the deprojected spectrum of the $i$th shell, $S(i)$ is the
226: double-background subtracted spectrum of the $i$th shell and $C_v(k,i)$ is
227: the fraction of the volume of the $k$th shell projected to the $i$th ring.
228:
229: The on-axis rmf (response matrix file) and arf (auxiliary responds file) are
230: generated by the SAS task {\it rmfgen} and {\it arfgen} and are used to
231: recover the correct spectral shape and normalization of the cluster emission
232: components.
233: %We generate both the response matrix file (rmf) and auxiliary responds
234: %file (arf) by the SAS task {\it rmfgen} and {\it arfgen} and use them to
235: %recover the correct spectral shape and normalization of the cluster emission
236: %components.
237:
238:
239: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
240: \section{Spectral analysis}
241: \subsection{Radial deprojected temperature profile}
242: The spectral analysis is carried out in XSPEC version 11.3.2 (Arnaud 1996).
243: To study the temperature distribution of RXCJ2228.6+2036, we perform a joint fit
244: to the spectra of pn and MOS with an absorbed Mekal model:
245: \begin{equation}
246: Model_1=Wabs(N_H)\times Mekal(T,z,A,norm),
247: \end{equation}
248: in which Wabs is a photoelectric absorption model (Morrison \& McCammon 1983)
249: and Mekal is a single-temperature plasma emission model (Mewe et al.1985,
250: 1986; Kaastra 1992; Liedahl et al. 1995). The temperature $T$, metallicity $A$
251: and normalization (emission measure) $norm$ are free parameters. We fixed the
252: redshift $z$ to 0.421 and the absorption $N_H$ to the Galactic value
253: 4.68$\times$10$^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$ (Dickey \& Lockman 1990). The fitting results
254: are listed in Table 1 and the central spectra fitted by this model are shown
255: as Fig. 3(a).
256:
257: \begin{table*}
258: \caption{The best-fit free parameters of RXCJ2228.6+2036 by the
259: single-temperature model: the temperature $T$; the abundance $A$ and the
260: normalized constant $norm$ for the simultaneously fitting of pn and MOS.
261: $norm = 10^{-14}/(4\pi (D_A\times(1+z))^2) \int n_e n_H dV$, where $D_A$ is
262: the angular size distance to the source (cm) and $n_e$ is the electron
263: density (cm$^{-3}$). $L_{bol}$ represents the bolometric luminosity (0.01-60
264: keV) in the units of $10^{44}$ erg s$^{-1}$. The errors represent a confidence
265: level of 90\%.}
266: \begin{center}
267: {\footnotesize
268: \begin{tabular}{cccccc}
269: \hline
270: $r$($'$) & $T$ (keV) & $A$ (solar)& $norm$($10^{-3}$cm$^{-5}$)
271: & $\chi^{2}_{\mathrm{red}}$/$dof$ & $L_{bol}$($10^{44}$ erg s$^{-1}$)
272: \\
273: \hline
274: 0.0-0.5 & $8.26^{+1.02}_{-0.92}$ & $0.31^{+0.19}_{-0.18}$ & $0.72\pm0.03$ &
275: 1.12/251 & $4.65^{+0.38}_{-0.31}$
276: \\
277: 0.5-1.0 & $11.65^{+2.54}_{-1.78}$ & $0.20^{+0.27}_{-0.2}$
278: & $0.88\pm0.05$ & 1.02/262 & $6.73^{+0.58}_{-0.76}$
279: \\
280: 1.0-1.75 & $9.03^{+1.82}_{-1.27}$ & $0.30^{+0.25}_{-0.24}$ &
281: $1.08\pm0.06$ & 1.00/196 & $7.33^{+0.72}_{-0.74}$
282: \\
283: 1.75-3.0 & $8.21^{+1.66}_{-1.26}$ & $0.12^{+0.25}_{-0.12}$
284: & $1.28\pm0.07$ & 0.86/189 & $7.89^{+0.81}_{-1.01}$
285: \\
286: 3.0-6.0 & $5.10^{+5.68}_{-2.22}$ & 0.12(fixed)
287: & $0.73^{+0.13}_{-0.10}$ & 0.51/59 & $3.34^{+1.20}_{-1.96}$
288: \\
289: \hline
290: \end{tabular}
291: }
292: \end{center}
293: \label{tablefit}
294: \end{table*}
295:
296: The deprojected temperature profile shows a drop in the core and a decrease
297: in the outer regions (see the diamonds in the upper panel of Fig. 2), which can
298: be fitted by the following formula (Xue et al. 2004):
299: \begin{equation}
300: T(r)=T_0+\frac{A}{r/r_0}exp(-\frac{(\ln r-\ln r_0)^2}{\omega}).
301: \end{equation}
302: The best fit parameters are: $A$ = $4.880\pm0.001$ keV, $r_0 = 2.494\pm0.003'$,
303: $\omega$ = $2.232\pm0.004$, $T_0 = 3.084\pm0.001$ keV, $\chi^{2}_{red}=0.31$,
304: and the best-fit profile is shown as the solid line in the upper panel of
305: Fig. 2. From the temperature distribution, we can estimate the
306: normalization-weighted temperature within $6'$, $t_{mean}=8.57^{+2.39}_{-1.56}$
307: keV, which is consistent with the results of Pointecouteau et al. (2002) and
308: LaRoque et al. (2006) within the error bars and a little higher than that of
309: Morandi et al. (2007). The diamonds in the bottom panel of Fig. 2 show the
310: deprojected abundance distribution of RXCJ2228.6+2036.
311:
312:
313: \begin{figure}[ht]
314: \centerline{\psfig{file=temp_abund.ps,width=7cm,angle=90}}
315: \caption{Upper panel: Radial temperature profile of RXCJ 2228.6+2036. Diamonds:
316: the deprojected temperature and the solid line is the best-fit profile. Stars:
317: for the PSF-corrected temperature (see Sect. 5.1). We offset the stars $5''$
318: to the left so as to illustrate these two kinds of temperature clearly.
319: Bottom panel: Radial deprojected abundance of RXCJ2228.6+2036. The confidence
320: level is 90\%.}
321: \end{figure}
322:
323:
324: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
325: \subsection{Mass deposition rate}
326: The temperature drop in the central part of RXCJ2228.6 +2036 might indicate the
327: existence of a cooling flow in the center. We thus estimate the parameters of
328: the cooling flow as follows.
329:
330: The cooling time $t_{cool}$ is the time scale during which the hot gas loses
331: all its thermal energy, which is calculated as (e.g. Chen et al. 2007):
332: \begin{equation}
333: t_{cool}=\frac{5}{2}\frac{n_e+n_i}{n_e}\frac{k_BT}{n_H\Lambda(T)}
334: \end{equation}
335: where $\Lambda(T)$ is the cooling function of the gas, and $n_e$, $n_i$ and
336: $n_H$ are the number densities of the electrons, ions and hydrogen,
337: respectively. Here for the nearly fully ionized plasma in clusters, $n_e=1.2n_H$
338: and $n_i=1.1n_H$. The determination of $n_e$ is explained later in
339: Sect. 4.1. The cooling time $t_{cool}$ of the inner two regions is given in
340: Table 2. The cooling radius designates the region inside which the hot gas
341: loses all its thermal energy within a cluster life time scale, usually
342: using the age of the universe ($1.04\times10^{10}$ yr at $z=0.421$). The
343: resulting cooling radius for RXCJ2228.6+2036 is $r_{cool}=147\pm10$ kpc.
344:
345: \begin{table}
346: \caption{The cooling time and the cooling flow rate determined with the spatial
347: method of the inner two regions of RXCJ2228.6+2036. The errors are at the
348: 68\% confidence level. $1'=332.7$ kpc.}
349: \begin{center}
350: \begin{tabular}{cccc}
351: \hline
352: $r_1$ & $r_2$ & $t_{cool}$(yr) & $\dot{M}$(M$_{\odot}$yr$^{-1}$)
353: \\
354: \hline
355: $0'$ & $0.5'$ & $1.18\pm0.07\times10^{10}$ & $200.2\pm12.4$
356: \\
357: $0.5'$ & $1'$ & $3.58\pm0.27\times10^{10}$ & $414.7\pm32.6$
358: \\
359: \hline
360: \end{tabular}
361: \end{center}
362: \label{tablefit}
363: \end{table}
364:
365: We also fit the central spectra of pn and MOS by adding a standard cooling
366: flow model to the isothermal Mekal component:
367: \begin{eqnarray}
368: Model_2&=&Wabs(N_H)\times(Mekal(T,z,A,norm)+ \nonumber \\
369: && Zwabs(\Delta N_H)\times Mkcflow(\dot{M})).
370: \end{eqnarray}
371: Wabs and Mekal have been described in Sect. 3.1, Zwabs is an intrinsic
372: photoelectric absorption model (Morrison \& McCammon 1983), and Mkcflow is a
373: cooling flow model (Fabian, 1988); $\Delta N_H$ is the intrinsic absorption
374: and $\dot{M}$ is the rate of gas cooling out of the flow. The fitting results
375: show that the mass deposition rate in the central region $r<0.5'$ is
376: $14.0^{+64.0}_{-14.0}$ M$_{\odot}$yr$^{-1}$ (see Table 3), so within $r_{cool}$
377: $\dot{M}=12_{-12}^{+56}$ M$_{\odot}$yr$^{-1}$. Fig. 3(b) presents the central
378: spectra fitted by this model.
379:
380: \begin{table*}
381: \caption{The best-fit parameters for the central region of RXCJ2228.6+2036 by
382: $Model_2$. The $lowT$ is fixed on 0.01 keV and $1'=332.7$ kpc. The errors
383: are at the 90\% confidence level.}
384: \begin{center}
385: \begin{tabular}{ccccccccc}
386: \hline
387: r & $T_{mekal}$ & low$T_{cf}$ & high$T_{cf}$ & A
388: & norm & $\dot{M}$ & $\Delta n_H$ & $\chi^{2}_{\mathrm{red}}$/$dof$
389: \\
390: &(keV) & (keV) & (keV)& (solar) & ($10^{-3}$cm$^{-5}$) &
391: (M$_{\odot}$) & ($10^{22}$cm$^{-2}$) &
392: \\
393: \hline
394: $0'-0.5'$ & $8.54^{+2.27}_{-1.18}$ & 0.01 (fix) & =$T_{mekal}$ &
395: $0.32\pm0.19$ & $0.70^{+0.05}_{-0.12}$ & $14.0^{+64.0}_{-14.0}$ &
396: 0.0(fix) & 1.12/250
397: \\
398: \hline
399: \end{tabular}
400: \end{center}
401: \label{tablefit}
402: \end{table*}
403:
404:
405: \begin{figure*}
406: \hbox{\psfig{figure=core_1t.ps,height=8.5cm,angle=-90}
407: \psfig{figure=core_cf_mekal.ps,height=8.5cm,angle=-90}}
408: \hbox{}
409: \caption {The spectra of the central region (r $<0.5'$) for joint fit of pn
410: (bold crosses) and MOS (faint crosses) of RXCJ2228.6+2036. {\bf a)} fitted
411: by a single-temperature model; {\bf b)} fitted by a cooling flow model with
412: an isothermal Mekal component. In b) we plot the isothermal and the cooling
413: flow components respectively, and the lower lines below the crosses represent
414: the multiphase components of pn (bold line) and MOS (faint lines), which
415: show that the multiphase components only contribute a little to the emissions.}
416: \end{figure*}
417:
418:
419: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
420: \section{Mass determination}
421: \subsection{Electron density}
422: We divided the $r<6^{\prime}$ region into 13 annuli centered on the emission
423: peak, where the width of each annular region is determined to obtain at least
424: 2000 total counts in each annulus region in 0.5-10 keV. After the vignetting
425: correction and the double-background subtraction, the surface brightness
426: profile for RXCJ2228.6+2036, $S(r)$, is derived, which can be fitted by a
427: double-$\beta$ model (as Eq. 9) convolved with the PSF matrices (Ghizzardi
428: 2001) to correct for the PSF effect. Using the deprojection technique described
429: in Sect. 2.3, we deproject the double-$\beta$ model (PSF corrected) and obtain
430: the count rate of each corresponding shell, $Ctr(i)$. Since the temperature and
431: abundance profiles are known, giving $T(i)$, $A(i)$ and $Ctr(i)$ in the $i$th
432: shell, we can derive the corresponding $norm(i)$ in XSPEC with $Model_1$. The
433: radial electron density $n_e$ of each region can be determined from Eq. (8),
434: shown as stars in Fig. 4.
435:
436: \begin{eqnarray}
437: norm(i)= 10^{-14}/(4\pi D^2)\cdot \int n_e n_H dV.
438: \end{eqnarray}
439:
440: We fit the derived electron density (the stars in Fig. 4) with the
441: double-$\beta$ model (Chen et al. 2003):
442: \begin{equation}
443: n_e(r)=n_{01} {\left(1+{(\frac{r}{r_{c1}})}^2\right)}^{-{\frac{3}{2}}\beta_1}+n_{02}
444: {\left(1+{(\frac{r}{r_{c2}})}^2\right)}^{-{\frac{3}{2}}\beta_2},
445: \end{equation}
446: the best-fit parameters are: $n_{01}$ = $0.0027\pm0.0002$ cm$^{-3}$,
447: $r_{c1}$ = $2.5480\pm0.0002$ arcmin, $\beta_1$ = $1.4031\pm0.0001$,
448: $n_{02}$ = $0.0109\pm0.0001$ cm$^{-3}$, $r_{c2}$ = $0.6547\pm0.0004$ arcmin,
449: $\beta_2$ = $1.5474\pm0.0001$, $\chi^{2}_{red}=0.71$, $dof$=7.
450: And the best-fit profile is shown as the solid line in Fig. 4.
451:
452: \begin{figure}[ht]
453: \centerline{\psfig{file=mynede_PSF.ps,width=6.5cm,angle=90}}
454: \caption{The deprojected electron density profile of RXCJ2228.6+2036 after PSF
455: correction. The error bars are at the 68\% confidence level. The solid line
456: is the best-fit profile from a double-$\beta$ model fitting.}
457: \end{figure}
458:
459:
460: \subsection{Total mass}
461: Once we have derived the radial temperature profile $T(r)$ and electron
462: density profile $n_e(r)$ for RXCJ2228.6+2036, the integrated total mass of this
463: cluster at radius $r$ can be calculated under the assumptions of hydrostatic
464: equilibrium and spherical symmetry by the following equation (Fabricant et al.
465: 1980):
466: \begin{equation}
467: M_{tot}(<r)=-\frac{k_B T r^2}{G\mu
468: m_p}\left[\frac{d(\ln{n_e})}{dr}+\frac{d(\ln{T})}{dr}\right],
469: \end{equation}
470: here $k_B$ is the Boltzmann constant, $G$ is the gravitational constant and
471: $\mu$ is the mean molecular weight in units of the proton mass $m_p$ (we assume
472: $\mu=0.6$ in this work). The mass uncertainties are obtained from the
473: uncertainties of the temperature and the electron density calculated by
474: Monte-Carlo simulations. We obtained 250 redistributions of the parameterized
475: temperature and electron density profiles by fitting to the data points varied
476: within the Gaussian error bars of the measurements. The uncertainties of all
477: the other properties of RXCJ2228.6+2036 are also calculated from the 250
478: simulated clusters.
479:
480: Then, we derived the total mass profile of RXCJ2228.6 +2036, shown in Fig. 5, and
481: $M_{tot}=(1.36\pm0.51)\times10^{15}$ M$_{\odot}$ at $6'$ at the 68\% confidence
482: level.
483:
484: \begin{figure}[ht]
485: \centerline{\psfig{file=totalmass.ps,width=9cm}}
486: \caption{The total mass profile of RXCJ2228.6+2036, and the error bars (dotted
487: lines) are at the 68\% confidence level. The vertical line indicates
488: $r_{500}=1.61\pm0.16$ Mpc.}
489: \end{figure}
490:
491: A physically meaningful radius for the mass measurement is defined as
492: $r_{500}$, the radius within which the mean gravitational mass density
493: $<\rho_{tot}>=500\rho_c$, where $\rho_c=3H^2/(8\pi G)$ is the critical cosmic
494: matter density. For our calculations, we use the value of $\rho_c$ at the
495: cluster redshift, i.e., $\rho_c=9.2\times10^{-30}$ g cm$^{-3}$. This radius is
496: still well covered by the observations. From the mass profile we derive
497: $r_{500}=1.61\pm0.16$ Mpc for RXCJ2228.6+2036, corresponds to $4.8'\pm0.5'$,
498: and the total mass within it is about $M_{500}=(1.19\pm0.35)\times10^{15}$
499: M$_{\odot}$. The mass derived from {\it Chandra} data by Morandi et al. (2007)
500: is $M_{tot}=(4.90\pm4.35)\times10^{14}$ M$_{\odot}$ within
501: $r_{500}=1033 \pm 464$ kpc, still consistent with ours within the error bars.
502: In our analysis, the extrapolated value of $r_{vir}=2.48\pm0.38$ Mpc
503: $=7.5'\pm1.1'$ and $M_{vir}=(1.55\pm0.72)\times10^{15}$ M$_{\odot}$, which
504: agrees with what Pointecouteau et al. (2002) derived.
505:
506:
507: \subsection{gas mass and gas mass fraction}
508: In galaxy clusters, gas is an important component involving complex physics.
509: From the electron density we calculate the gas mass and the gas mass fraction
510: defined as $f_{gas}(r)=M_{gas}(r)/M_{tot}(r)$. Fig. 6 shows the gas mass
511: fraction profile of RXCJ2228.6+2036. The gas mass fraction at $6'$ is
512: $f_{gas}=0.17\pm0.06$, consistent within the error bars with the results of
513: LaRoque et al. (2006) from the {\it Chandra} X-ray and OVRO/BIMA
514: interferometric SZ effect measurements: $f_{gas} = 0.138 \pm 0.009$ from the
515: X-ray data and $f_{gas} = 0.188^{+0.035}_{-0.031}$ from the SZ data. It also
516: agrees with the WMAP measured baryon fraction of the Universe $f_b =
517: \Omega_b/\Omega_m = 0.166$ (Spergel et al. 2003).
518:
519: \begin{figure}[ht]
520: \centerline{\psfig{file=gas_fraction.ps,width=9cm}}
521: \caption{The gas mass fraction profile of RXCJ2228.6+2036. The dashed horizontal
522: line indicates the WMAP measurement of $f_b=\Omega_b/\Omega_m=0.166$ (Spergel
523: et al. 2003) and the vertical line indicates $r_{500}=1.61\pm0.16$ Mpc. The
524: error bars (dotted lines) are at the 68\% confidence level.}
525: \end{figure}
526:
527:
528: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
529: \section{Discussion}
530: \subsection{PSF-corrected spectra}
531: The spatially resolved spectral analysis is affected by the PSF.
532: To correct for the PSF effect, we first calculate the redistribution matrix,
533: $F_{ij}$, which is the fractional contribution in the $i$th ring coming from
534: the $j$th ring (Pratt \& Arnaud 2002). We get this redistribution from our
535: best fitted double-$\beta$ model of electron density (converted to emission
536: measure profile) and the PSF matrices (Ghizzardi 2001). Since we have divided
537: our cluster into 5 regions, we can obtain the fractional contribution in each
538: ring coming from all the bins, and in Fig. 7, we plot the contribution from
539: the bin, all inner and outer bins.
540:
541: \begin{figure}[ht]
542: \centerline{\psfig{file=matrix.ps,width=9cm}}
543: \caption{Redistributions due to the {\it XMM-Newton} PSF: the diamonds
544: represent the contribution coming from the bin, the stars from the inner bins
545: and the triangles from the outer bins.}
546: \end{figure}
547:
548: Here, $O_i$ is the observed spectrum of the $i$th ring after a double-background
549: subtraction, $S_i$ is the spectrum without PSF effect, so for our cluster
550: RXCJ2228.6+2036, we have:
551:
552: \begin{eqnarray}
553: \left(\begin{array}{ccccc}
554: F_{11}&F_{12}&F_{13}&F_{14}&F_{15}\\
555: F_{21}&F_{22}&F_{23}&F_{24}&F_{25}\\
556: F_{31}&F_{32}&F_{33}&F_{34}&F_{35}\\
557: F_{41}&F_{42}&F_{43}&F_{44}&F_{45}\\
558: F_{51}&F_{52}&F_{53}&F_{54}&F_{55}
559: \end{array}\right)
560: \cdot
561: \left(\begin{array}{c}
562: S_1\\
563: S_2\\
564: S_3\\
565: S_4\\
566: S_5
567: \end{array}\right)
568: =
569: \left(\begin{array}{c}
570: O_1\\
571: O_2\\
572: O_3\\
573: O_4\\
574: O_5
575: \end{array}\right).
576: \end{eqnarray}
577: From this function we can derive $S_i$, which indicates the spectra after
578: the PSF correction. Then, we deproject these spectra $S_i$ by the deprojection
579: technique described in Sect. 2.3, and thus derive the PSF corrected deprojected
580: spectra. Fitting these spectra with $Model_1$, we obtained the PSF-corrected
581: deprojected temperatures, shown as stars in the upper panel of Fig. 2.
582:
583: We find that the PSF-corrected temperatures agree with the measurements
584: without PSF-correction. This may be due to the broad width of the regions we
585: chose. However it should be noted here that these spectral fits are not as good
586: as those in Sect. 3.1 because the PSF-correction procedure introduces
587: significant uncertainties, mainly due to the inversion process (see Eq. 11).
588:
589:
590: \subsection{Gas pressure and comparison with the SZ data}
591: With the temperature profile $T(r)$ and electron density profile $n_e(r)$, we
592: can derive the gas pressure profile of RXCJ2228.6+2036 as:
593: \begin{equation}
594: P(r)=n_e(r)k_BT(r).
595: \end{equation}
596: In terms of observables, the gas pressure can be checked against the SZ effect
597: (Sunyaev \& Zel'dovich 1972) coming from the cluster. Indeed the SZ effect is
598: directly proportional to the integrated pressure over the line of sight:
599: \begin{eqnarray}
600: S_{SZ}(r)&=&\frac{\sigma_T}{m_ec^2}
601: \int{k_BT(r)n_e(r)dr} \cdot f_{SZ}(v,T) \nonumber \\
602: &=&\frac{\sigma_T}{m_ec^2} \int{P(r)dr} \cdot f_{SZ}(v,T),
603: \end{eqnarray}
604: where $k_B$, $m_e$, $c$ and $\sigma_T$ are the Boltzmann constant, the electron
605: mass, the speed of light and the Thomson cross-section; $f_{SZ(v,T)}$
606: represents the SZ spectral shape (including the relativistic corrections
607: as computed by Pointecouteau et al. 1998).
608:
609: Here we integrated the gas pressure of RXCJ2228.6 +2036 using Eq. (13), convolved
610: with the PSF of the 45 m radio telescope NRO (the beam size at 21 GHz:
611: $\theta_{FWHM}\sim80$ arcsec) and then compared it with the SZ radial
612: profile (Pointecouteau et al. 2002) in Fig. 8. The diamonds are from the SZ
613: data and the solid line represents our result. We found a remarkable agreement
614: within the error bars.
615:
616: \begin{figure}[ht]
617: \centerline{\psfig{file=pressure_SZ.ps,width=6.5cm,angle=90}}
618: \caption{The integrated X-ray pressure profile of RXCJ2228.6 +2036 convolved
619: with the PSF of the SZ telescope (the solid line) and compared with the SZ
620: radial profile (the diamonds) derived by Pointecouteau et al. (2002). All
621: the errors are at the 68\% confidence level.}
622: \end{figure}
623:
624: The good agreement of the X-ray and SZ surface brightness profile in Fig. 8 may
625: lend itself to test biases in the derivation of the pressure profile from the
626: X-ray data. The most interesting aspects concern a bias in the temperature
627: measurement in the presence of a multitemperature ICM (e.g. Mazzotta et al.
628: 2004, Vikhlinin 2006) and the overestimate of the gas density due to the
629: enhancement of the surface brightness if the gas is clumpy. In the following we
630: will investigate how these two effects are modifying the comparison of the X-ray
631: and SZ data.
632:
633: If we assume that the ICM is in rough pressure equilibrium the two bias effects
634: on the temperature and the density are actually linked (for $n_e \cdot T=$
635: constant). While local unresolved density inhomogeneities will lead to an
636: overestimation of the density and the prediction of a too high SZ-signal, the
637: temperature of a clumpy medium will be underestimated compared to a mass average
638: and result in an underprediction of the SZ signal. So both effects are at least
639: partly compensating each other in our study.
640:
641: Quantitatively the overestimation of the gas density is given by:
642: \begin{equation}
643: C'=\frac{<n_e^2>}{<n_e>^2},
644: \end{equation}
645: where the overestimation factor is $C=\sqrt{C'}$.
646: To quantify the underestimation of the temperature for this hot cluster, {\bf we
647: can approximately use the approach of Mazzotta et al. (2004) (Eq.14) which
648: yields:
649: \begin{equation}
650: \frac{T_{sl}}{T}=R=\frac{<n_e><n_e^{1.75}>}{<n_e^{2.75}>},
651: \end{equation}
652: where $T_{sl}$ is a good approximation of the spectroscopic temperature as would
653: be obtained from data analysis of {\it Chandra} and {\it XMM-Newton} observations
654: for a multi-temperature plasma, and $T$ the mass weighted mean.}
655:
656: As an example we calculate these effects for a homogeneous distribution with a
657: lower and higher cutoff of, $T_1=<T>-\varepsilon$ and $T_2=<T>+\varepsilon$,
658: respectively. A more general distribution can also be seen as a superposition
659: of many of these `top-hat' distributions. Fig. 9 shows the enhancement factors
660: $C$ and $R$ as a function of the distribution width parameter, $\varepsilon$.
661: We note that the two effects don't cancel each other, but the effect of the
662: temperature underestimate is about 2-3 times larger than the overestimat-e due to
663: clumpiness. Still the overall effect is not dramatic and does therefore not
664: provide a very good diagnostics. Even for a broad temperature distribution with
665: $\varepsilon/<T> \approx 0.75$ for example, covering a temperature range (from
666: the lower temperature to the higher temperature) of a factor of 7, we obtain an
667: SZE underestimate of about {\bf 30\% and a gas mass overestimate of about 18\%.}
668:
669: \begin{figure}[ht]
670: \centerline{\psfig{file=CR_new.ps,width=8.5cm}}
671: \caption{Overestimation factor of the gas density $C$ and underestimation of
672: the spectroscopic like temperature versus the mass weighted temperature $R$ as
673: a function of the width of a homogeneous temperature distribution in the
674: presence of pressure equilibrium. The combined effect $C\times R$ is for the
675: underestimation of SZE. For the definition of the parameters see the text.}
676: \end{figure}
677:
678: This has also implications on the mass measurement. While the pressure profile
679: and its derivative can be directly taken from the SZ-profile, we still require
680: an independent absolute temperature measurement for the normalization of the
681: mass profile. The above calculation shows now, that we don't obtain very precise
682: new information on a possibly low biased temperature due to a multiphase ICM
683: from having simultaneous X-ray and SZ observations. In the above example a
684: temperature and mass underestimation of {\bf 40\% is only indicated by an SZ
685: deviation of 30\%.}
686:
687:
688: \subsection{Gas entropy and the $S-T$ relation}
689: Following Ponman et al. (1999), we defined the entropy of the gas in clusters
690: as:
691: \begin{equation}
692: S(r)=\frac{T(r)}{n_e(r)^{\frac{2}{3}}}.
693: \end{equation}
694: This entropy corresponds to the heat supplied per particle for a given reference
695: density. Fig. 10 shows the entropy distribution as a function of radius, where
696: the diamonds represent the entropy obtained from the spectra fitting results
697: and the solid line from the best fitted $T(r)$ and $n_e(r)$ profiles.
698:
699: \begin{figure}[ht]
700: \centerline{\psfig{file=entropy2.ps,width=6.5cm,angle=90}}
701: \caption{The entropy distribution of RXCJ2228.6+2036. The diamonds represent
702: the entropy derived from the spectral fitting results and the solid line from
703: the best fitted $T(r)$ and $n_e(r)$ profiles. The vertical line shows
704: $r_{500}=1.61\pm0.16$ Mpc. The error bars are at the 68\% confidence level.}
705: \end{figure}
706:
707: Pratt et al. (2006) have shown for the $S-T$ relation measured from a sample
708: of 10 local and relaxed clusters observed by {\it XMM-Newton}, that
709: $S_{0.3} \propto T_X^{0.64}$, where
710: $S_{0.3}$ means the entropy at $0.3r_{200}$ and $T_X$ is the mean temperature
711: in the region of $0.1r_{200}<r<0.5r_{200}$. For RXCJ2228.6+2036,
712: $S_{0.3r200}=959\pm130$ keV cm$^2$ and $T_X=8.91^{+1.91}_{-1.33}$ keV.
713: The $S_{0.3r200}$ versus $T_{X}$ for RXCJ2228.6+2036 is plotted on the $S-T$
714: relation derived by Pratt et al. (2006), shown in Fig. 11. The diamonds and
715: the best fit line (the solid line) are from Pratt et al. (2006), and the star
716: indicates the result of RXCJ2228.6+2036. It shows that our entropy value for
717: RXCJ2228.6+2036 is consistent (within the 1$\sigma$ error bars) with Pratt et
718: al. (2006) $S-T$ relation at 0.3$r_{200}$, once corrected for the expected
719: evolution in a self-similar scenario of structure formation.
720:
721: \begin{figure}[ht]
722: \centerline{\psfig{file=S_T.ps,width=6.5cm,angle=90}}
723: \caption{Comparison of the present result with the $S-T$ relation of Pratt et
724: al. (2006). The star indicates the result of RXCJ2228.6+2036, and the diamonds
725: and the best-fitted $S-T$ relation line (the solid line) come from Pratt et al.
726: (2006). Here $h(z)=[0.3(1+z)^3+0.7]^{\frac{1}{2}}$. The error bars of the star
727: are at the 68\% confidence level.}
728: \end{figure}
729:
730:
731: \subsection{$M-T$ and $L-T$ relations}
732: From the above analysis, we derived the temperature, mass and X-ray luminosity
733: (see Table 1) of RXCJ2228.6+2036: within $r_{500}=4.8'$,
734: $M_{500}=(1.19\pm0.35)\times10^{15}$ M$_{\odot}$,
735: $T_{500}=8.92^{+1.78}_{-1.32}$ keV and $L_{bol,500}=28.83^{+3.69}_{-4.78}
736: \times 10^{44}$ erg s$^{-1}$. Therefore we can compare RXCJ2228.6+2036 to the
737: empirical scaling relations for massive galaxy clusters, e.g. $M_{500}-T_{500}$
738: and $L_{bol,500}-T_{500}$ derived from {\it XMM-Newton} data, such as in Kotov
739: \& Vikhlinin (2005) based on 10 clusters at $z=0.4-0.7$, Arnaud et al. (2005)
740: based on 10 nearby clusters ($z<0.15$) and Zhang et al. (2008) based on 37
741: LoCuSS clusters at $z\sim 0.2$. The comparison is shown in Figs.12-13. The
742: diamonds and the solid line are from Kotov \& Vikhlinin (2005), the triangles
743: and the dashed line from Arnaud et al. (2005), the dotted line from Zhang
744: et al. (2008), and the star indicates the result of RXCJ2228.6+2036.
745:
746: It shows that our result is consistent with any of these previous studies
747: within the scatter of the relations. The agreement of our $L-T$ relation with
748: that of Kotov \& Vikhlinin (2005, with objects in the same redshift range as
749: ours) is remarkable, in particular as X-ray luminosity with its square
750: dependence on density is a parameter which is very sensitive to morphological
751: disturbances and which thus generally shows a large scatter.
752:
753:
754: \begin{figure}[ht]
755: \centerline{\psfig{file=M_T.ps,width=6.5cm,angle=90}}
756: \caption{Comparison of the present result with literature $M-T$ relations. The
757: star indicates the result of RXCJ2228.6+2036, the diamonds and their best-fitted
758: $M-T$ relation line (the solid line) come from Kotov \& Vikhlinin (2005), the
759: triangles and the dashed line from Arnaud et al. (2005), and the dotted line
760: from Zhang et al. (2008). Here $h(z)=[0.3(1+z)^3+0.7]^{\frac{1}{2}}$. The
761: error bars of the star are at the 68\% confidence level.}
762: \end{figure}
763: \begin{figure}[ht]
764: \centerline{\psfig{file=L_T.ps,width=6.5cm,angle=90}}
765: \caption{Comparison of the present result with the $L-T$ relation of Kotov \&
766: Vikhlinin (2005). The star indicates the result of RXCJ2228.6+2036, and the
767: diamonds and the best-fitted $L-T$ relation line (the solid line) come from
768: Kotov \& Vikhlinin (2005). The error bars of the star are at the 68\%
769: confidence level.}
770: \end{figure}
771:
772: \subsection{$M-Y$ relation}
773: The integrated SZ flux $Y_{SZ} \propto \int{k_BTn_edV} \propto M_{gas}T$,
774: and thus the simplest X-ray analog is defined as $Y_{X}=M_{gas}T$. Kravtsov
775: et al. (2006) show that $Y_{X}$ is the best mass proxy with a remarkably low
776: scatter and the $M-Y_{X}$ relation is close to the self-similar prediction.
777:
778: For RXCJ2228.6+2036, $M_{500}=(1.19\pm0.35)\times10^{15}$ M$_{\odot}$ and
779: $Y_{X,500}=21.84^{+2.70}_{-2.04}\times10^{14}$ M$_{\odot}$ keV. We plot
780: $M_{500}$ versus $Y_X$ in Fig. 14 (shown as a star) and compare it with the
781: $M-Y_X$ relations of Zhang et al. (2008) (the solid line), Kravtsov et al.
782: (2006) (the dash-dotted line), Nagai et al. (2007) (the dashed line) and Arnaud
783: et al. (2007) (the dotted line), which shows a good consistency.
784:
785: \begin{figure}[ht]
786: \centerline{\psfig{file=M_Y.ps,width=6.5cm,angle=90}}
787: \caption{Comparison of the present result with the $M-Y$ relation of Zhang et
788: al. (2008) (the solid line), Kravtsov et al. (2006) (the dash-dotted line),
789: Nagai et al. (2007) (the dashed line) and Arnaud et al. (2007) (the dotted line).
790: The star indicates the result of RXCJ2228.6+2036 with the errors of 68\%
791: confidence level. $h(z)=[0.3(1+z)^3+0.7]^{\frac{1}{2}}$.}
792: \end{figure}
793:
794:
795: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
796: \section{Conclusion}
797: We presented a detailed analysis of the {\it XMM-Newton} observations of the
798: distant galaxy cluster RXCJ2228.6+2036 ($z=0.421$) using our deprojection
799: technique. Through the spectral fitting we derived the deprojected temperature
800: profile $T(r)$. Weighted by normalizations, we derived a mean temperature
801: within $r_{500}$, $T_{500}=8.92^{+1.78}_{-1.32}$ keV, which confirms within the
802: error bars the previous results by Pointecouteau et al. (2002) and LaRoque
803: et al. (2006).
804:
805: Then we calculated the cooling time of this cluster and obtained a cooling
806: radius of $147\pm10$ kpc. Fitted by a cooling flow model with an isothermal
807: Mekal component, we derived the mass deposition rate $\sim$
808: $12.0^{+56.0}_{-12.0}$ M$_{\odot}$yr$^{-1}$ within $r_{cool}$.
809:
810: Using the radial density profile $n_e(r)$ and radial temperature profile
811: $T(r)$, we obtained the mass distribution of RXCJ2228.6+2036. At
812: $r_{500}=1.61\pm0.16$ Mpc, the total mass is
813: $M_{500}=(1.19\pm0.35)\times10^{15}$ M$_{\odot}$, in agreement with the
814: results of Pointecouteau et al. (2002), derived from a combined SZ/X-ray spatial
815: analysis, and the gas mass fraction is $f_{gas}=0.165\pm0.045$.
816:
817: We discussed the PSF-correction effect on the spectral analysis and found that
818: the PSF-corrected temperatures are consistent with those without PSF correction.
819:
820: We found a remarkable agreement within the error bars between our X-ray results
821: and the SZ measurements in Pointecouteau et al. (2002), which is of prime
822: importance for the future SZ survey. The X-ray total mass and X-ray observables
823: for RXCJ2228.6+2036 closely obey the empirical scaling relations found in
824: general massive galaxy clusters, e.g. the $S$--$T$, $M$--$T$, $L$--$T$ and
825: $M$--$Y$ relations, after accounting for self-similar evolution.
826:
827: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
828: \begin{acknowledgements}
829: We thank G. Pratt for providing useful suggestions.
830: This work was supported by CAS-MPG exchange program. HB and EP acknowledge
831: support by the DFG for the Excellence Cluster Universe, EXC 153.
832: EP acknowledges the support of grant ANR-06-JCJC-0141. YYZ acknowledges support
833: from the German BMBF through the Verbundforschung under grant
834: No.\,50\,OR\,0601.
835: \end{acknowledgements}
836:
837:
838: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
839: \begin{thebibliography}{}
840: \bibitem{} Arnaud K.A., 1996, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V,
841: eds. Jacoby G. and Barnes J., p17, ASP conf. Series vilume 101
842: \bibitem{} Arnaud M., Majerowicz S., Lumb D., et al., 2002, A\&A, 390, 27
843: \bibitem{} Arnaud M., Pointecouteau E. \& Pratt G.W., 2005, A\&A, 441, 893
844: \bibitem{} Arnaud M., Pointecouteau E. \& Pratt G.W., 2006, A\&A, 474, 37
845: \bibitem{} B\"{o}hringer H., Matsushita K., Churazov E., Ikebe Y., Chen Y.,
846: 2002, A\&A, 382, 804
847: \bibitem{} B\"{o}hringer H., Voges W., Huchra J.P., et al. 2000, ApJS, 129,
848: 435
849: \bibitem{} Chen Y., Ikebe Y., B\"{o}hringer H., 2003, A\&A, 407, 41
850: \bibitem{} Chen Y., Reiprich T.H., B\"{o}hringer H., et al. 2007, A\&A, 466,
851: 805
852: \bibitem{} De Luca A. \& Molendi S, 2004, A\&A, 419,837
853: \bibitem{} Dickey J.M., \& Lockman F.J., 1990, ARAA, 28, 215
854: \bibitem{} Ebeling H., Edge A.C., Allen S.W., et al. 2000, MNRAS, 318, 333
855: \bibitem{} Ettori S., Fabian A.C., Allen S.W., Johnstone R.M., 2002, MNRAS, 331,
856: 635
857: \bibitem{} Fabian A.C., 1988, Sci, 242, 1586
858: \bibitem{} Fabricant D., Lecar M., Gorenstein P., 1980, ApJ, 241, 552
859: \bibitem{} Gastaldello F.A., Buote D.A., Brighenti F. \& Mathews W.G., 2007,
860: [arXiv: astro-ph/07120783]
861: \bibitem{} Ghizzardi S., 2001, in-flight calibration of the PSF for MOS1 and
862: MOS2 cameras, EPIC-MCT-TN-011, Internal report
863: \bibitem{} Jia S.M., Chen Y. \& Chen L., ChJAA, 2006, 6, 181
864: \bibitem{} Jia S.M., Chen Y., Lu F.J., Chen L., Xiang F., 2004, A\&A, 423,65
865: \bibitem{} Kaastra J.S., 1992, An X-ray Spectral Code for Optically Thin Plasma
866: (Internal Sron-Leiden Report, updated version 2.0 )
867: \bibitem{} Kotov O. \& Vikhlinin A., 2005, ApJ, 633, 781
868: \bibitem{} Kravtsov A.V., Vikhlinin A. \& Nagai D., 2006, ApJ, 650, 128
869: \bibitem{} LaRoque S.J., Bonamente M., Carlstrom J.E., et al. 2006, ApJ, 652,
870: 917
871: \bibitem{} Liedahl D.A., Osterheld A.L., Goldstein W.H., 1995, ApJL, 438, 115
872: \bibitem{} Matsushita K., Belsole E., Finoguenov A., B\"{o}hringer H., 2002,
873: A\&A, 386, 77
874: \bibitem{} Mazzotta P., Rasia E., Moscardini L. \& Tormen G., 2004, MNRAS,
875: 354,10
876: \bibitem{} Mewe R., Gronenschild E.H.B.M., van den Oord G.H.J., 1985, A\&AS, 62,
877: 197
878: \bibitem{} Mewe R., Lemen J.R., and van den Oord G.H.J. 1986, A\&AS, 65, 511
879: \bibitem{} Morandi A., Ettori S. \& Moscardini L., 2007, MNRAS, 379, 518
880: \bibitem{} Morrison R. \& McCammon D., 1983, ApJ, 270, 119
881: \bibitem{} Ngai D. Kravtsov A.V. \& Vikhlinin A., 2007, ApJ, 668, 1
882: \bibitem{} Nulsen P.E.J. \& B\"{o}hringer H., 1995, MNRAS, 274, 1093
883: \bibitem{} Peterson J.R., Kahn S.M., Paerels F.B.S., et al., 2003, ApJ, 590, 207
884: \bibitem{} Pointecouteau E., Arnaud M., Kaastra J., de Plaa J., 2004, A\&A, 423,
885: 33
886: \bibitem{} Pointecouteau E., Giard M. \& Barret D., 1998, A\&A. 336, 44
887: \bibitem{} Pointecouteau E., Hattori M., Neumann D., et al. 2002, A\&A, 387,
888: 56
889: \bibitem{} Ponman T.J., Cannon D.B., Navarro J.F., 1999, Nature, 397, 135
890: \bibitem{} Pratt G.W. \& Arnaud M., 2002, A\&A, 394, 375
891: \bibitem{} Pratt G.W., Arnaud M. \& Pointecouteau E., 2006,A\&A, 446, 429
892: \bibitem{} Schuecker P., B\"{o}hringer H., Collins C.A., \& Guzzo L., 2003,
893: A\&A, 398, 867
894: \bibitem{} Snowden S.L., Egger R., Freyberg M.J., McCammon D., Plucinsky P.P.,
895: Sanders W.T., Schmitt J.H.M.M.,Trumper J., Voges W., 1997, ApJ, 485, 125
896: \bibitem{} Spergel D.N., Verde L., Peiris H.V., et al. 2003, ApJ, 593, 705
897: \bibitem{} Str\"{u}der L., Briel U., Dennerl K., et al., 2001, A\&A, 365, L18
898: \bibitem{} Sunyaev R. \& Zel'dovich Y., 1972, Comm. Astrophys. Space Phys. 4,
899: 173
900: %\bibitem{} Tozzi P. \& Norman C., 2001, ApJ, 546, 63
901: \bibitem{} Vikhlinin A., 2006, ApJ, 640, 710
902: \bibitem{} White D.A., Jones C., Forman W., 1997, MNRAS, 292,419
903: \bibitem{} Xue Y.J., B\"{o}hringer H. \& Matsushita K., 2004, A\&A, 420, 833
904: \bibitem{} Zhang Y.Y., B\"{o}hringer H., Finoguenov A., et al. 2006, A\&A,
905: 2006, 456, 55
906: \bibitem{} Zhang Y.Y., Finoguenov A., B\"{o}hringer H., et al. 2007, A\&A,
907: 467, 437
908: \bibitem{} Zhang Y.Y., Finoguenov A., B\"{o}hringer H., et al.,2008, [arXiv:
909: astro-ph/08020770]
910:
911: \end{thebibliography}
912:
913:
914: \end{document}
915:
916:
917:
918:
919:
920: