1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: %% Modified 2004 August 30
3: %%
4: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:
5: %% \documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
6: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
7: %%\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
8: %% Sometimes a paper's abstract is too long to fit on the
9: %% title page in preprint2 mode. When that is the case,
10: %% use the longabstract style option.
11: %% \documentclass[preprint2,longabstract]{aastex}
12: %%
13: %% Author-defined commands
14: %----------------------------------------------------------------------
15: %
16: % modified to include rtr's superior LaTeXmanship
17: %
18: \def\tmbcom#1{{\bf TMB: #1}}
19: \def\ldacom#1{{\bf LDA: #1}}
20: %
21: % draft 1: lda january08
22: % draft 2: lda march08
23: % draft 3: lda april08
24: % draft 4: lda may08
25: % draft 5: lda august08
26: %
27: % ----- define organization
28: \newcommand{\nraoblurb}{The National Radio Astronomy Observatory is
29: a facility of the National Science Foundation operated under cooperative
30: agreement by Associated Universities, Inc.}
31: % ----- units
32: \newcommand{\m}{$\,{\rm m}$}
33: \newcommand{\cm}{$\,{\rm cm}$}
34: \newcommand{\kpc}{$\,{\rm kpc}$}
35: \newcommand{\K}{\ensuremath{\,{\rm K}}}
36: \newcommand{\ks}{${\,{\rm km\, sec^{-1}}}$}
37: \newcommand{\msun}{$\,M_\odot$}
38: \newcommand{\gyr}{$\,{\rm Gyr}$}
39: \newcommand{\mhz}{$\,{\rm MHz}$}
40: \newcommand{\ghz}{$\,{\rm GHz}$}
41: \newcommand{\percc}{$\,{\rm cm^{-3}}$}
42: \newcommand{\hr}{$\,{\rm hr}$}
43: \newcommand{\kms}{\ensuremath{\,{\rm km\,s}^{-1}}}
44: \newcommand{\degree}{\,^\circ}
45: \newcommand{\degper}{\ensuremath{\rlap.{^{\circ}}}}
46: \newcommand{\arcmper}{\rlap.{^{\prime}}}
47: \newcommand{\arcsper}{\ensuremath{{\rlap.{^{\prime\prime}}}}}
48: \newcommand{\jy}{\,Jy}
49: \newcommand{\jyb}{$\rm \,Jy\,beam^{-1}$}
50: \newcommand{\mjy}{\,mJy}
51: \newcommand{\mjyb}{$\rm \,mJy\,beam^{-1}$}
52: \newcommand{\microjy}{\,$\mu$Jy}
53: \newcommand{\microjyb}{$\rm \,\mu Jy\,beam^{-1}$}
54: % ----- atoms etc.
55: \newcommand{\h}[1]{$^{#1}{\rm H}$}
56: \newcommand{\hi}{{\rm H\,}{{\sc i}}}
57: \newcommand{\hii}{{\rm H\,}{{\sc ii}}}
58: \newcommand{\he}[1]{$^{#1}{\rm He}$}
59: \newcommand{\heiii}{{\rm He\,}{{\sc iii}}}
60: \newcommand{\li}[1]{$^{#1}{\rm Li}$}
61: \newcommand{\car}[1]{$^{#1}{\rm C}$}
62: \newcommand{\ci}{{\rm C\,}{{\sc i}}}
63: \newcommand{\cii}{{\rm C\,}{{\sc ii}}}
64: %
65: % 12 and 13 CO
66: \newcommand{\co}{\ensuremath{^{12}{\rm CO}}}
67: \newcommand{\cor}{\ensuremath{^{13}{\rm CO}}}
68: \newcommand{\wco}{\ensuremath{W_{\rm CO}}}
69: %
70: % he-3 commands
71: \newcommand{\hethree}{\ensuremath{{}^3{\rm He}}}
72: \newcommand{\hefour}{\ensuremath{{}^4{\rm He}}}
73: \newcommand{\hepthree}{\ensuremath{{}^3{\rm He}^+}}
74: \newcommand{\hep}[1]{$^{#1}{\rm He}^{+}$}
75: \newcommand{\hepr}[1]{$^{#1}{\rm He}^{+}/{\rm H}^{+}$}
76: \newcommand{\hepp}[1]{$^{#1}{\rm He}^{++}$}
77: \newcommand{\heppr}[1]{$^{#1}{\rm He}^{++}/{\rm H}^{+}$}
78: \newcommand{\her}[1]{$^{#1}{\rm He}/{\rm H}$}
79: \newcommand{\lir}[1]{$^{#1}{\rm Li}/{\rm H}$}
80: %
81: % recombination lines
82: \newcommand{\hal}{${\rm H}\,91\alpha$}
83: \newcommand{\heal}{${\rm He}\,91\alpha$}
84: \newcommand{\heps}{${\rm H}\,154\epsilon$}
85: \newcommand{\heta}{${\rm H}\,171\eta$}
86: \newcommand{\halp}{${\rm H}\,\alpha$}
87: \newcommand{\halpha}{\ensuremath{\langle{}\,{\rm H}{}\,\rangle{}\,\alpha}}
88: % ----- misc
89: \newcommand{\nexpo}[2]{\ensuremath{{#1}\times 10^{#2}}}
90: \newcommand{\expo}[1]{\ensuremath{10^{#1}}}
91: \newcommand{\ngc}[1]{NGC\thinspace #1}
92: \newcommand{\jon}[1]{J\thinspace #1}
93: \newcommand{\etab}{$\eta_{\rm \,b}$}
94: \newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}
95: \newcommand{\tex}{$T_{\rm ex}$}
96: \newcommand{\hisa}{{\rm H\,}{{\sc i}{\rm~SA}}}
97: \newcommand{\hiea}{{\rm H\,}{{\sc i}{\rm~E/A}}}
98: \newcommand{\titleI}{\thinspace \bf {\small I}}
99: \newcommand{\titleII}{\thinspace \bf {\small II}}
100:
101: \bibpunct[; ]{(}{)}{;}{a}{}{; }
102: %----------------------------------------------------------------------
103: %
104: \slugcomment{draft \# 5 --- lda, \today}
105:
106: \shorttitle{Distances for H\titleII\ Regions}
107: \shortauthors{Anderson et al.}
108: \begin{document}
109:
110: \title{Resolution of the Distance Ambiguity for Galactic H\titleII\ Regions}
111:
112: \author{L. D. Anderson\altaffilmark{1} \& T. M. Bania\altaffilmark{1}}
113:
114: \altaffiltext{1}{Institute for Astrophysical Research,
115: 725 Commonwealth Ave., Boston University, Boston MA 02215, USA.}
116:
117: \begin{abstract}
118: We resolve the kinematic distance ambiguity for 266 inner Galaxy \hii\
119: regions out of a sample of 291 using existing \hi\ and \cor\ sky
120: surveys. Our sample contains all \hii\ regions with measured radio
121: recombination line (RRL) emission over the extent of the \cor\ Boston
122: University---Five College Radio Astronomy Observatory Galactic Ring
123: Survey ($18 \arcdeg\ < l < 55 \arcdeg$ and $|b| < 1$) and contains
124: ultra compact, compact, and diffuse \hii\ regions. We use two methods
125: for resolving the distance ambiguity for each \hii\ region: \hi\
126: emission/absorption (\hiea) and \hi\ self-absorption (\hisa). We find
127: that the \hiea\ and \hisa\ methods can resolve the distance ambiguity
128: for 72\% and 87\% of our sample, respectively. When projected onto the
129: Galactic plane, this large sample appears to reveal aspects of
130: Galactic structure, with spiral arm-like features at Galactocentric
131: radii of 4.5 and 6 kpc, and a lack of \hii\ regions within 3.5 kpc of
132: the Galactic center. Our \hii\ regions are approximately in the ratio
133: of 2 to 1 for far verses near distances. The ratio of far to near
134: distances for ultra-compact \hii\ regions is 2.2 to 1. Compact \hii\
135: regions are preferentially at the near distance; their ratio of far to
136: near distances is 1.6 to 1. Diffuse \hii\ regions are preferentially
137: at the far distance; their ratio of far to near distances is 3.8 to 1.
138: This implies that the distinction between ultra compact and compact
139: \hii\ regions is due largely to distance, and that the large angular
140: size of diffuse \hii\ regions is not due solely to proximity to the
141: Sun.
142: \end{abstract}
143:
144: \keywords{\hii\ regions --- ISM: molecules --- radio lines: ISM --- stars: formation}
145:
146: \section{INTRODUCTION\label{sec:intro}}
147: \hii\ regions are the clearest tracers of massive star formation
148: because of their visibility across the Galactic disk at cm-wavelengths.
149: Without a known distance, however, the physical properties of \hii\
150: regions remain unknown. Distances allow one to transform
151: measured properties such as flux and angular size into physical
152: properties such as luminosity and physical size. The knowledge of these
153: properties for \hii\ regions is vital to understanding the process of
154: star formation in our Galaxy.
155:
156: % Rotation curve
157: The simplest and most common way to estimate the distance to an \hii\
158: region with a measured velocity is to assume a Galactic rotation
159: curve. Rotation curves generally model axially symmetric circular
160: orbits such that a source's velocity is a function only of
161: Galactocentric distance.
162: %Therefore, velocities can be transformed into distances.
163: There have been many models of Galactic rotation proposed using
164: various tracers \citep[e.g][]{burtongordon78, clemens85, brand86,
165: fich89, mcclure07}. All rotation curves have some amount of intrinsic
166: error because they are simplified models of a more complicated
167: rotation pattern. Additionally, when transforming velocities into
168: distances, velocities that depart from circular rotation (due to
169: streaming motions) will cause errors in the derived distance.
170: Streaming motions result in velocity deviations of $\sim 10$ \kms\
171: \citep{burton71, stark89}, which cause a distance uncertainty up to 2
172: kpc over the longitude range of our present study.
173:
174: % KDA
175: While the procedure of transforming velocities into distances is
176: straightforward in the outer Galaxy, most distances in the inner Galaxy
177: are degenerate: for each velocity there are two possible distances.
178: These two distances (a ``near'' and a ``far'' distance) are spaced
179: equally about the tangent point distance. This problem has become known
180: as the kinematic distance ambiguity (KDA). For only one positive
181: velocity along each line of sight, the tangent point velocity, is the
182: degeneracy not present. Determining whether the \hii\ regions in our
183: sample lie at the near or the far distance is the goal of this paper.
184:
185: %hiea
186: One method that has proved effective at resolving the KDA towards \hii\
187: regions is \hi\ Emission/Absorption, hereafter \hiea. All \hii\ regions
188: emit broadband thermal free-free continuum radiation in the
189: cm-wavelength regime. Neutral \hi\ gas between the \hii\ region and the
190: observer will absorb the thermal continuum if the brightness temperature
191: of the \hi\ is less than that of the \hii\ region at 21 cm. Because the
192: continuum emission is broadband, and not limited to a particular
193: frequency (velocity), all foreground \hi\ has the potential to absorb
194: the \hii\ region's continuum. In the first quadrant, the LSR velocity
195: increases with distance from the Sun, reaches a peak at the tangent
196: point, and decreases with distance thereafter (see Figure
197: \ref{fig:velcurve}). Thus \hii\ regions at the near distance will show
198: \hi\ absorption lines from foreground clouds at velocities up to their radio
199: recombination line (RRL) velocity. If an \hii\ region is at the far
200: distance, it will show absorption from foreground \hi\ clouds with
201: velocities up to the tangent point velocity. The \hiea\ method
202: therefore relies on \hi\ absorption at velocities between the RRL and
203: tangent point velocity to distinguish between the near and the far
204: distance.
205: %\hi\ occupies all allowed velocities and there
206: %are frequently multiple absorbing clouds along any line of sight.
207: %As the filling factor for \hi\ is much higher than that of ${\rm
208: %H_2CO}$, this method provides a more reliable determination of distance
209: %for sources whose velocity is near the tangent point velocity. For
210: %example, \citet{kolpak03} estimate that there are \hi\ clouds of optical
211: %depth greater than 0.1 every $\sim 100$ pc. \citet{bania84} estimated
212: %that the mean free path between cold \hi\ clouds is $\lesssim 0.7$ \kpc.
213:
214: % studies using hiea
215: Many authors have used \hiea\ to resolve the KDA for \hii\
216: regions. \citet{kuchar94} used both pointed Arecibo 21 cm \hi\
217: observations (HPBW of $4\arcmin$) and also Boston University---Arecibo
218: Observatory Galactic \hi\ Survey data \citep[hereafter BUAO \hi\ survey;
219: ][]{kuchar93} to resolve the KDA for 70 Galactic \hii\ regions.
220: \citet{fish03} resolved the KDA using the \hiea\ method for a sample of
221: 20 UC \hii\ regions using the VLA in A- or BnA-configurations
222: ($1\arcsec$ to $6\arcsec$ synthesized beam). \citet{kolpak03}
223: measured the 21 cm \hi\ absorption spectrum towards 49 \hii\ regions
224: using the VLA in C-configuration ($16 \arcsec$ synthesized beam). The
225: high success rate of these efforts proves the utility of \hiea\
226: experiments in \hii\ region distance determinations.
227: %Recently, the
228: %\hiea\ method has been used to constrain or determine the distance for
229: %individual Galactic supernova remnants in the first quadrant
230: %\citep{tian07, leahy08}.
231:
232: %hisa
233: A second method that has been used to resolve the KDA is \hi\
234: self-absorption, hereafter \hisa. \hisa\ is useful for resolving the
235: KDA for molecular clouds. Cold foreground \hi\ will absorb against
236: warmer background \hi\ at the same velocity. \citet{liszt81}
237: hypothesized that Galactic molecular clouds must contain residual \hi, a
238: result that has been confirmed by many observations
239: \citep[e.g.][]{wannier91, kuchar93, williams96}. The \hi\ gas
240: associated with molecular clouds is cold ($\sim 10 \K$) compared the the
241: warm \hi\ in the ISM ($\sim 100 \K$). The \hi\ inside a molecular cloud
242: at the near distance will absorb against the warm background \hi\ at the
243: same LSR velocity that lies at the far distance. The \hi\ inside a
244: molecular cloud at the far distance shows no such absorption as there is
245: no background \hi\ at the same velocity. Thus the signature of a cloud
246: at the near distance is molecular emission at the same velocity and with
247: the same line width as an \hi\ absorption feature. Since \hii\ regions
248: are almost always associated with molecular gas (Anderson et al. 2008;
249: hereafter Paper I), the distance to \hii\ regions can be found using
250: \hisa.
251:
252: Molecular clouds frequently display \hisa\ features
253: \citep[e.g.][]{knapp74}. A theoretical study by \citet{flynn04} showed
254: that all model molecular clouds could produce \hisa. \citet{jackson02}
255: found a strong \hisa\ signal associated with the molecular cloud located
256: at ($l,b$)=($45\fdg6,+0\fdg3$) using the BUAO \hi\ survey \citep{kuchar93} and
257: the BU--FCRAO \cor\, Galactic Ring Survey data\footnote[1]{Data
258: available at http://www.bu.edu/galacticring/} \citep[GRS;
259: ][]{jackson06}. \citet{goldsmith05} found that the \cor\ molecule is a
260: very good tracer of \hisa.
261: % most likely because fractionation in areas of low
262: %density increases \cor\ at the expense of \co, while photo-destruction
263: %decreases the amount of \cor\ relative to \co. These effects appear to
264: %cancel at the cloud boundary.
265: More recently, \citet{busfield06} used \hisa\ analysis to determine the
266: distances towards massive young stellar object candidates.
267:
268: % H2CO
269: One can also use formaldehyde (${\rm H_2CO}$) absorption to resolve the
270: KDA. This method is identical to the \hiea\ method, except that the
271: absorber is ${\rm H_2CO}$ instead of \hi. Again, it is the broadband
272: nature of the radio continuum emission of \hii\ regions that makes this
273: method possible, as the radio continuum and ${\rm H_2CO}$ lines are both
274: bright in the cm-regime. The ${\rm H_2CO}$ absorption method was used
275: by \citet{wilson72} in a study of 73 discrete radio continuum peaks in
276: the Galactic plane, 49 of which are \hii\ regions. \citet{downes80}
277: used this method on a larger sample of Galactic radio sources. More
278: recently, \citet{araya02}, \citet{watson03}, and \citet{sewilo04} used
279: ${\rm H_2CO}$ absorption towards ultra compact (UC) \hii\ regions to
280: resolve the KDA towards a combined 108 out of 147 sources.
281:
282: %``Among these sources, 49 are H ii regions with known recombination-line
283: %velocities; Wilson detected formaldehyde absorption toward 45. For 28 of
284: %the 45 H ii regions, he successfully employed the formaldehyde
285: %absorption measurements to resolve the KDA and determine unique
286: %kinematic distances.''
287: %In these
288: %works, ${\rm H_2CO}$ and ${\rm H110 \alpha}$ were simultaneously
289: %observed using either Arecibo or the NRAO Green Bank Telescope. These
290: %observations were made towards sources in the range $l = 340\arcdeg {\rm
291: %to} 350\arcdeg$, $l = 10\arcdeg {\rm to} 70\arcdeg$ and $|b|\le
292: %1\arcdeg$. Their source sample included UC regions confirmed with high
293: %resolution continuum measurements and nebulae believed to be UC regions
294: %based on IRAS colors.
295: % Studies using H2CO
296:
297: %20 of 21 sources araya
298: %44 of 54 sources watson
299: %44 of 72 sources sewilo
300:
301: % Uncertainties in H2CO
302: Because of the high filling factor of \hi\ compared to ${\rm H_2CO}$,
303: \hi\ absorption methods are more robust than ${\rm H_2CO}$ absorption
304: methods. In ${\rm H_2CO}$ studies there may not be a molecular cloud
305: with appreciable ${\rm H_2CO}$ that has a velocity that lies between the
306: \hii\ region and the tangent point velocities. In this case the near
307: distance will be mistakenly chosen since there will be no absorption
308: line between the source velocity and the tangent point velocity. On the
309: basis of their observations, \citet{watson03} estimate that there is one
310: cloud containing measurable ${\rm H_2CO}$ every 2.9 \kpc. For \hi\,
311: there is average one cloud every 0.7 kpc \citep{bania84}. The chance of
312: the misassignment increases as the difference between the near distance
313: and the tangent point distance decreases, making the determination using
314: ${\rm H_2CO}$ absorption for sources near the tangent point less
315: robust than the determination made using \hi\ absorption.
316:
317: %This study has xxx main goals. Are there differences by type?
318:
319: \section{DATA}
320:
321: \subsection{The VLA Galactic Plane Survey}
322:
323: For the \hiea\ analysis we use data from the VLA 21cm \hi\ Galactic
324: Plane Survey \citep[VGPS; ][]{stil06}. The VGPS sky coverage spans $18
325: \arcdeg < l < 67\arcdeg$ with $|b|$ varying from $1\fdg3$ to $2\fdg6$
326: over the longitude range. The angular resolution of the VGPS is
327: $1\arcmin$. Short-spacing information was obtained by making an \hi\
328: survey with the NRAO Green Bank Telescope. The spectral resolution of
329: the VGPS is 1.56 \kms, with a channel width of 0.824 \kms. The RMS
330: noise in the VGPS is $\sim 2$ K per 0.824 \kms\ channel. In addition to
331: the \hi\ data cubes, the VGPS also produced continuum maps from the
332: portions of each spectrum without \hi\ line emission. These 21cm
333: continuum maps have the same $1\arcmin$ resolution as the line emission
334: data cubes.
335:
336: \subsection{The Southern Galactic Plane Survey}
337:
338: For the range $15\arcdeg < l < 18\arcdeg$ we use the Southern Galactic
339: Plane Survey \citep[SGPS; ][]{mcclure05}. The SGPS sky coverage spans
340: $253\arcdeg < l < 358\arcdeg$ and $5\arcdeg < l < 20\arcdeg$ over the
341: latitude range $|b| \le 1.5$. The SGPS combines data from the Australia
342: Telescope Compact Array and the Parkes Radio Telescope. The angular
343: resolution of the SGPS is $\sim 2\arcmin$. The spectral resolution of
344: the SGPS is 0.8 \kms. The RMS noise in the SGPS is 1.6 K. The
345: continuum data for the SGPS are not yet public over the longitude range
346: of interest here, so we use the SGPS data at large negative velocities
347: as a proxy.
348:
349: \subsection{{\bf The $^{\bf 13}$}CO Galactic Ring Survey\label{GRS}}
350:
351: For the \hisa\ analysis we use both the \hi\ surveys and the \cor\ GRS.
352: The GRS sky coverage spans 74 square degrees, from $18 \degr < l < 56
353: \degr$ and $\vert b\vert < 1 \degr$ with additional, incomplete sky
354: coverage from $14 \degr < l < 18 \degr$ over the same latitude range.
355: The GRS has an angular resolution of $46\,\arcsec$, a spectral
356: resolution of $0.21 \kms$, and $22 \, \arcsec$ angular sampling. The
357: typical spectral RMS of the GRS is 0.13 K (T$_A^*$).
358:
359: \subsection{The H\titleII\ Region Sample}
360:
361: Our sample of 291 \hii\ regions is that of Paper I, which used the GRS
362: to associate molecular gas clumps with \hii\ regions. This sample
363: represents all \hii\ regions with measured RRL emission over the extent
364: of the GRS. The sample contains UC \hii\ regions \citep[compiled from
365: ][]{araya02, watson03, sewilo04}, classical compact \hii\ regions
366: \citep[compiled from ][]{lockman89}, and diffuse regions \citep[compiled
367: from ][]{lockman96}. Here we follow the naming convention of Paper I.
368: %We refer to these categories as UC, compact, and diffuse.
369: The first letter of the \hii\ region name (``U'', ``C'', or ``D'')
370: refers to its classification (UC, compact, or diffuse). In Paper I, all
371: sources were confirmed to be \hii\ regions by examining their infrared
372: and radio continuum emission.
373:
374: There are a number of UC \hii\ regions in this sample that have multiple
375: RRL velocities along the line of sight, indicating multiple \hii\
376: regions. In Paper I we were able to determine which RRL velocity is
377: truly from the UC \hii\ region for 10 cases on the basis of the
378: molecular emission near these \hii\ regions. We expunge the 10 \hii\
379: regions at the velocity without molecular emission from our sample.
380: While the RRL emission indicates that there are \hii\ regions at these velocities, they are
381: unlikely to be UC \hii\ regions; their removal results in a cleaner
382: sample. For lines of sight with multiple \hii\ regions, the \hiea\
383: method is unable to distinguish which \hii\ region is causing the
384: absorption.
385:
386: Table \ref{tab:1} summarizes the kinematic properties of our \hii\
387: regions derived using the \citet{mcclure07} rotation curve. Listed in
388: Table \ref{tab:1} are the source name, the Galactic longitude and
389: latitude, the RRL velocity, the Galactocentric radius, the near
390: distance, the far distance, and the tangent point distance. Typical
391: measurement errors on the RRL velocity are 2 \kms\ (see data compiled in
392: Paper I). This error is insignificant compared to uncertainties in the
393: rotation curve model, which may be 10 \kms. There are 25 lines of sight
394: with multiple RRL velocities. The source names for these \hii\ regions
395: are denoted with an extra ``a'' or ``b'' (e.g. D17.25$-$0.20a).
396:
397: \section{RESOLVING THE KDA \label{sec:resolve}}
398:
399: % two analyses
400: We perform two independent analyses on each \hii\ region, using both the
401: \hiea\ and \hisa\ techniques.
402: %and verify that the molecular gas
403: %assumed to be associated with the \hii\ regions by Paper I is
404: %actually at the same distance as the \hii\ region.
405: There are many benefits to using both methods. Some sources may be
406: better suited to one method. The use of both methods also allows us to
407: test the robustness of the methods themselves.
408: % reason two are better than one
409: The \hiea\ and \hisa\ methods are complementary. A lack of strong
410: absorption increases the chance that a source will be assigned to the
411: near distance in the \hiea\ analysis, as it may not show absorption
412: between the RRL velocity and the tangent point velocity. A lack of
413: absorption in the \hisa\ analysis, however, implies the far distance. A
414: null result in the \hiea\ analysis therefore implies the near distance,
415: while a null result in the \hisa\ analysis implies the far distance.
416:
417: \subsection{H\titleI\ Emission/Absorption \label{sec:hiea}}
418: The \hiea\ method studies \hi\ absorption from foreground \hi\ clouds
419: absorbing against the broadband continuum emission from a background
420: \hii\ region.
421: %If an \hii\ region is at the
422: %near distance, all cold foreground \hi\ clouds will produce absorption
423: %up to the \hii\ region's velocity. An \hii\ region at the far distance
424: %will produce absorption up to the tangent point velocity.
425: The absorption is usually, and most easily, detected in the difference
426: between on-- and off--source spectra as follows:
427: %
428: \begin{equation} \label{eqn:dt} \Delta T(v) = [T_{\rm off}(v) - T_{\rm on}(v)] = T_{\rm c}(1 - e^{-\tau (v)}), \end{equation}
429: %
430: where $T_{\rm on}(v)$ and $T_{\rm off}(v)$ are the on-- and off--source
431: \hi\ intensity at velocity $v$, $T_{\rm c}$ is the continuum brightness
432: temperature, and $\tau(v)$ is the optical depth of the absorbing gas at
433: velocity $v$. As can be seen from Equation \ref{eqn:dt}, absorption
434: features will appear as positive values of $\Delta T$.
435:
436: %For strong sources, the distance
437: %determination is often unambiguous. Weak sources, however, may not have
438: %foreground clouds that able to produce absorption, which limits the
439: %reliability of any distance determination.
440:
441: %The fluctuations in the emission can be characterized as
442: %
443: %\begin{equation}\sigma_{\Delta T} {\rm (}v {\rm )} = \left \{
444: %\frac{1}{N} \displaystyle\sum_{i=0}^n [T_i(v) - T_{i+1}(v)^2] \right \}^
445: %{1/2}.\end{equation}
446: %
447:
448: % factors to consider when creating on/off spectra
449: We use the \hi\ survey data to derive the $T_{\rm on}$ and $T_{\rm off}$
450: spectra for each source. We select on-- and off--source regions using
451: the 21cm continuum maps and extract spectra from all voxels that fall
452: within these on-- and off--source regions. We then average all the
453: on--source spectra to create an unweighted average on--source spectrum,
454: and do the same for the off--source spectra.
455:
456: There are many factors to consider when selecting which on-- and
457: off--source locations will produce the strongest and most reliable
458: absorption signal. We find that the following four factors are the most
459: important when selecting the on-- and off--source regions from which the
460: spectra will be extracted:
461: \begin{enumerate}
462:
463: \item The on-- and off--source region should be located as near to each
464: other as possible so the spectra share the same background.
465:
466: \item The on--source region should be small and localized on the
467: strongest continuum emission, as this will produce the strongest
468: absorption. The VGPS RMS noise is $\sim 2$ \K\ channel$^{-1}$ (the RMS
469: noise of the SGPS is 1.6 K channel$^{-1}$), which is large when compared
470: to the absorption signal for weak continuum sources. Therefore, the
471: on--source region must also be large enough to significantly reduce this
472: noise in the resultant average on--source spectrum.
473:
474: \item The off--source region should entirely encircle the on--source
475: spectrum in an attempt to account for gradients in the background
476: emission.
477:
478: \item The off--source region should be located off the continuum source
479: and away from other continuum sources so the absorption signal is not
480: lost when the difference spectrum is created.
481:
482: \end{enumerate}
483:
484: We find that satisfying criterion (1) at the expense of the other
485: criteria gives the most reliable results. To some extent, these
486: criteria are mutually exclusive. For example, a large diffuse source
487: has difficulty satisfying conditions (1) and (2) and (3) simultaneously
488: since the strongest continuum locations are far away from the locations
489: without continuum emission. Weak continuum sources and complicated
490: regions require a compromise between these criteria.
491:
492: % selection of on and off source spectra
493: We use these criteria to select on-- and off--source regions
494: individually for each \hii\ region. In the 21cm continuum images,
495: we define the on--source region as all contiguous pixels associated with
496: each \hii\ region that are above a threshold evaluated individually for
497: each region. We then define the off--source region as being those
498: pixels that both encircle the on--source pixels, and also are free from
499: continuum emission.
500:
501: % noise estimates
502: % noise
503: There are two sources of noise that affect the reliability of a 21\,cm
504: absorption line detection: receiver noise and true variations in the
505: emission profile. The calculation of emission fluctuations is of course
506: not free from receiver noise, so these two values do not add in
507: quadrature.
508: %The RMS noise in the VGPS, $\sigma_{rms}$, is $\sim 2$~K
509: %channel$^{-1}$.
510: We calculate the RMS receiver noise for each spectrum
511: individually from the channels devoid of \hi\ emission. We estimate the
512: true fluctuations in the \hi\ background by computing the standard
513: deviation of values in the off--source spectrum at each velocity:
514: %
515: \begin{equation}
516: \sigma_{T} {\rm (}v {\rm )} = \left \{ \frac{1}{N}
517: \displaystyle\sum_{i=0}^n [T_{{\rm off,} i}(v) - \overline{T}_{\rm off}(v)]^2
518: \right \}^ {1/2},
519: \end{equation}
520: %
521: where the summation is carried out over all pixels in the off--source
522: region and $\overline{T}_{\rm off}(v)$ is the average value in the
523: off--source region. We require the difference spectrum, $\Delta T$, to
524: be larger than $5\sigma_{rms}$ and larger than $1\sigma_{T}$ for a
525: positive detection of \hi\ absorption, criteria similar to that of other
526: authors \citep[e.g. ][]{payne80, kuchar94}.
527:
528: % abs near rrl criterion
529: We find that fluctuations in the background emission are not well
530: accounted for by our error estimates. \hii\ regions should have
531: enough neutral hydrogen just beyond the ionization front to
532: produce absorption.
533: %To gauge whether the features in the spectrum are
534: %true absorption or the result of backgrond fluctuations,
535: For each source we test for absorption within 10 \kms\ of the RRL
536: velocity. Because \hii\ regions expand as they age, we allow as much as
537: a 10 \kms\ difference between the RRL velocity and the absorption
538: velocity. The KDA resolution for sources that do not show {\it any}
539: absorption within 10 \kms\ of the RRL velocity should be regarded with
540: suspicion since the absorption signal must be very weak, and may be due
541: to background fluctuations.
542:
543: % tp criterion
544: To limit misassignments to the near distance, we assign all sources
545: whose source velocity is within 10 \kms\ of the tangent point velocity
546: to the tangent point distance. The reliability of a \hiea\ distance
547: assignment decreases as the source velocity approaches the tangent point
548: velocity. As the two velocities approach one another, the probability
549: of a cold intervening cloud decreases, and therefore a near distance
550: assignment becomes increasingly probable and the KDA resolution
551: increasingly problematic.
552:
553: \subsection{H\titleI\ Self-Absorption \label{sec:hisa}}
554: % Explaination of hisa
555:
556: Cold \hi\ lying in front of warm background \hi\ will absorb the warmer
557: emission, a process known as \hi\ self-absorption. Molecular clouds are
558: composed partly of neutral hydrogen. This neutral gas is cold compared
559: to the warmer \hi\ gas in the interstellar medium. \hii\ regions are
560: created by massive stars inside molecular clouds, and show a strong
561: association with molecular gas \citep[][Paper I]{churchwell90, russeil04}.
562: The use of the \hisa\ method for the molecular gas associated with \hii\
563: regions provides another, but less direct, KDA resolution technique.
564:
565: There must be significant cold \hi\ gas to produce measurable absorption
566: against the warm \hi\ background. The intensity of an \hisa\ features at
567: LSR velocity $v$ \citep[see ][]{levinson80} is
568: %
569: %\begin{equation}\tau_0 = {\rm -ln} \left[ 1 - \frac{\Delta T (v)}{T_b(v) - T_s} \right] \end{equation}
570: \begin{equation}\Delta T_{\rm SA}(v) = (T_b(v) - T_s) (1 - e^{-\tau(v)}) , \end{equation}
571: %
572: where $\Delta T_{\rm SA} (v)$ is the depth of the self-absorption line
573: at velocity $v$, $T_b(v)$ is the intensity of the warm \hi\ background
574: at velocity $v$, $T_s$ is the \hi\ spin temperature, and $\tau(v)$ is
575: the optical depth at velocity $v$. In the average \hi\ spectra we
576: create for the \hiea\ analysis the $1\sigma_{rms}$ is generally $\sim
577: 0.2\K$. We find, however, that variations of $\sim 10 \K$ are necessary
578: to distinguish \hisa\ from background fluctuations. For $T_s = 10 \K$,
579: and $T_b = 100 \K$, we calculate that the minimum optical depth required
580: to produce measurable \hisa\ is $\sim 0.12$. To convert from line
581: parameters to column density of \hi\, we use the equation
582: %
583: \begin{equation}N{\rm(HI)} = 1.82 \times 10^{18} ~T_s ~\tau_0 ~\Delta V, \end{equation}
584: %
585: where $\Delta V$ is the FWHM of the absorption line, and $\tau_0$ is the
586: optical depth at line center. If we assume $\Delta V = 5 \kms$, a
587: column density of $\sim 1 \times 10^{19}$ \hi\ atoms is required to
588: produce measurable \hisa.
589:
590: There should be sufficient residual cold \hi\ inside most molecular
591: clouds to produce a measurable \hisa\ signal. Cosmic rays maintain a
592: small population of cold neutral \hi\ inside all molecular clouds.
593: Assuming molecular clouds are comprised of $\sim 0.2\%$ H nuclei
594: \citep{burton78, li03}, a column density of $6 \times 10^{21}$ ${\rm
595: H_2}$ molecules is required to create the necessary column density of
596: \hi\ for \hisa. Using the conversions of \citet{simon01}:
597: %
598: \begin{equation}
599: N({\rm H_2}) = 4.92 \times 10 ^{20}\, T_{\rm 13CO}\, \Delta v \simeq 5 \times 10^{20}\,W_{\rm 13CO},
600: \end{equation}
601: %
602: a $W_{\rm 13CO}$ value of $\sim 10 \K \kms$ is required to produce
603: measurable \hisa\ from cold \hi\ in a molecular cloud. Integrated
604: intensity values of this magnitude are frequently found towards \hii\
605: regions (Paper I).
606: %Therefore, one may estimate the distance of an \hii\
607: %region using the cold \hi\ inside its associated molecular gas.
608: %As not all associated
609: %molecular gas in Paper I is at least 20 \K \kms, we do not expect
610: %all sources to show measurable \hisa.
611:
612: % Beginning of procedure
613: % continuum exclusion
614: The analysis of \hisa\ in molecular clouds is complicated by \hii\
615: regions for two reasons: (1) \hii\ regions are strong continuum sources
616: and produce absorption at many velocities along the line of sight; and
617: (2) \hii\ regions heat molecular clouds, which decreases the
618: self-absorption signal. To eliminate absorption from continuum sources,
619: we locate all significant continuum features in the VGPS and SGPS data
620: sets. We find in the \hiea\ analysis that locations with VGPS or SGPS
621: 21\,cm continuum intensities of $\sim 20 \K$ can produce an absorption
622: signal. This 20~K limit was also chosen by \citet{gibson05} to exclude
623: continuum locations from their \hisa\ analysis. In addition to discrete
624: continuum sources, there is diffuse continuum emission in the plane of
625: the Galaxy. This diffuse emission must be subtracted off to gauge a
626: continuum source's intensity reliably. We estimate the diffuse
627: background by filtering the continuum images with a $10 \arcmin$ median
628: filter. We then subtract this background image from the original
629: continuum image and locate all pixels that are above $20 \K$. We
630: exclude the positions of these pixels from further \hisa\ analysis.
631:
632: % need for larger clouds
633: To solve the problem of local heating by \hii\ regions, we search for
634: absorption signals in the larger molecular cloud associated with the
635: \hii\ region, and not in the molecular material immediately surrounding
636: the \hii\ region. The larger clouds we use entirely surround and
637: encompass the molecular clumps. We find that in general the molecular
638: gas immediately surrounding \hii\ regions produces poor absorption
639: signals, presumably due to the increased heating. Also, for some \hii\
640: regions (especially UCs) the continuum and \cor\ clump are entirely
641: co-spatial. Therefore, a larger region must be analyzed for these \hii\
642: regions since excluding all positions with a continuum intensity greater
643: than 20 K would exclude all emission from the associated molecular
644: clump. Further, the size scale of the molecular gas clumps associated
645: with \hii\ regions (a few arcminutes in diameter, see Paper I) makes
646: \hisa\ difficult to distinguish from background fluctuations in the VGPS
647: and SGPS, which are also of the same size scale. The larger associated
648: clouds are likely colder and often have filamentary morphologies that
649: make \hisa\ signals easier to identify in both spectra and integrated
650: intensity images.
651:
652: % Procedure for larger clouds
653: To identify these larger molecular clouds, we create \cor\ integrated
654: intensity, $W_{\rm 13CO}$, images of each \hii\ region with associated
655: \cor\ (253 regions) using the \cor\ line center and line width from
656: the analysis of Paper I. We then locate pixels in this integrated
657: intensity image that are contiguous with the molecular material found
658: in Paper I in two trials: one trial where all selected pixels have
659: values greater than 75\% of the peak value found in Paper I, and a
660: second trial where the level is set to 85\% of the peak value. For
661: bright \cor\ clumps, the 75\% level selects regions that are too large
662: and possibly merged with other clouds. For dim \cor\ clumps the 85\%
663: level selects sources that are too small. One of these two levels
664: reliably selects a single molecular cloud for nearly all sources. For
665: a few sources, the 75\% level selects regions that are still within
666: the radio continuum emission area, and therefore a lower threshold is
667: necessary. We also require all pixels to have values greater than 5
668: times the RMS background level in the integrated intensity image.
669: This criterion prevents clouds with weak \cor\ emission from becoming
670: too large and merging with background emission.
671:
672: % no off
673: In the \hisa\ analysis, locating off--source positions that sample the
674: same background and do not cause absorption is extremely difficult and
675: unreliable. This difficulty primarily stems from the large angular size
676: of the molecular cloud that we are probing. Our criterion (1) for the
677: selection of on-- and off--source regions in the \hiea\ analysis, which
678: also applies to the \hisa\ analysis, mandates on-- and off--pairings
679: that are close on the sky. The large size of the molecular cloud makes
680: this criterion nearly impossible to satisfy, and hence would lead to many
681: false absorption signals. Moreover, as shown in \S\ref{sec:discussion},
682: a \hisa\ signal may be caused by low column densities of \cor, and
683: therefore it is difficult to find off--positions without absorption.
684:
685: \section{H\titleII\ Region Distances}
686: \subsection{H\titleI\,Emission/Absorption Protocol \label{sec:hiea_protocol}}
687: We determine whether the source lies at the near or the far distance
688: using the analysis summarized in Figure \ref{fig:hiea}, which shows
689: example spectra for four \hii\ regions. The top panel in each plot shows the
690: on--source (solid line) and off--source (dotted line) average \hi\
691: spectra. The bottom panel shows the difference spectrum ($\Delta T$).
692: The three vertical lines on the left mark the RRL velocity, and the $\pm
693: 10 \kms$ area. The vertical dashed line on the right marks the tangent
694: point velocity \citep{mcclure07}. The dotted lines in the bottom panel
695: show our error estimates (the larger of $5\sigma_{rms}$ and
696: $1\sigma_{T}$), see \S\ref{sec:hiea}.
697:
698: % quality
699: We assign a confidence parameter to each source based on the strength of
700: the absorption features and RRL velocity with respect to the tangent
701: point velocity. This qualitative parameter indicates our confidence
702: that the \hiea\ KDA resolution is correct. We are very confident in the
703: KDA resolutions for sources with a confidence parameter value of ``A''.
704: We assign sources with significant absorption features that are
705: generally at the same level as the noise a confidence of ``B''. We also
706: assign a confidence ``B'' to sources for which the RRL velocity and the
707: tangent point velocity are close, as the probability of intervening gas
708: is low. There are 47 sources for which we are unable to assign a
709: distance with any confidence due to weak or absent absorption features.
710:
711: % making sure
712: Background fluctuations caused by on-- and off--source spectra drawn
713: from different regions can cause false absorption signals. This is the
714: largest source of uncertainty in our analysis. To separate true \hiea\
715: signals from background fluctuations, which may be caused by \hisa, we
716: require that the absorption morphology matches the continuum morphology.
717: We verify the \hiea\ KDA resolution for all sources by examining the
718: single channel 21cm \hi\ position-position intensity image at the
719: velocity of highest absorption with VGPS or SGPS 21cm continuum contours
720: overlaid. Example images for the same sources whose spectra are shown
721: in Figure \ref{fig:hiea} are shown in Figure \ref{fig:hiea_images}.
722:
723: \subsection{H\titleI\ Self-Absorption Protocol}
724: % spectrum analysis
725: We determine if the source lies at the near or the far distance using
726: the analysis summarized in Figure \ref{fig:hisa}, which shows examples
727: for four \hii\ regions. In Figure \ref{fig:hisa}, the gray curve is the
728: average \hi\ spectrum and the black curve is the average \cor\ spectrum.
729: The vertical solid line marks the velocity of the associated \cor\ gas
730: found in Paper I, while the vertical dashed line shows the tangent point
731: velocity. We visually examine each plot for absorption features in the
732: \hi\ spectrum at the velocity of the associated \cor\ emission. These
733: absorption features must also share nearly the same line width in \hi\
734: and \cor\ to be true self-absorption features.
735:
736: % image verification
737: Background fluctuations and absorption from cold \hi\ gas not in
738: molecular clouds confuse the spectral analysis by creating features that
739: appear to be \hisa\ signals in the spectra. Additionally, since we are
740: examining the larger molecular cloud surrounding a molecular clump,
741: there is an increased risk of blending molecular clouds at the near and
742: the far distances that share the same velocity. We therefore require
743: the morphology of the absorption in the \hi\ images to match that of the
744: \cor\ gas. We verify the results of the \hisa\ spectral analysis by
745: examining single channel \hi\ VGPS or SGPS images centered at the
746: velocity of peak \cor\ emission, with \cor\ integrated intensity
747: contours overlaid. Figure \ref{fig:hisa_images} shows representative
748: images for the same sources who spectra were shown in Figure
749: \ref{fig:hisa}. As is clear from Figure \ref{fig:hisa_images}, \hisa\
750: features may be difficult to determine from \hi\ images alone. The
751: spectral analysis is often easier to interpret, and we mainly use the
752: images to aid in confusing cases.
753:
754: % quality
755: We assign each source a confidence parameter to indicate the likelihood
756: that the \hisa\ feature is an artifact of noise or of background
757: fluctuations. This qualitative parameter indicates our confidence that
758: the \hisa\ KDA resolution is correct. For ``A'' sources at the near
759: distance, the \hi\ absorption signal is strong, unambiguous, and at the
760: same velocity as the \cor\ emission line. For ``A'' sources at the far
761: distance, the \hi\ at the velocity of the \cor\ emission line is smooth
762: and shows no fluctuations that could be interpreted as weak absorption.
763: The reliability of the KDA resolution for ``B'' quality sources is less
764: certain due to a fluctuating \hi\ spectrum or weak \cor\ emission.
765:
766: \subsection{The KDA Resolutions}
767: % Total success
768: We are able to resolve the KDA for 266 out of 291 sources (91\%). This
769: statistic is a bit misleading, though, as the percentage of successful
770: KDA resolutions is $99\%$ for UC \hii\ regions, 97\% for compact \hii\
771: regions, and $72\%$ for diffuse \hii\ regions. Diffuse \hii\ regions
772: are difficult to analyze mainly due to their weak radio continuum and
773: molecular emission. Additionally, the \hiea\ analysis is more difficult
774: for \hii\ regions of larger angular extent, since finding ``off'' positions
775: that measure the same background as the ``on'' positions is challenging.
776:
777: % hiea success
778: The \hiea\ method has a few limitations that decrease the number of
779: sources whose KDA can be resolved. For lines of sight with multiple
780: \hii\ regions, the \hiea\ method is unable to distinguish which \hii\
781: region is causing the absorption. Additionally, we assign \hii\
782: regions with RRL velocities within 10 \kms\ of the tangent point
783: velocity to the tangent point distance. Excluding the sources with
784: multiple velocities and those whose RRL velocity is within 10 \kms\ of
785: the the tangent point velocity, our success rate for the \hiea\ method
786: is 72\%. The \hiea\ method is better suited to strong, compact radio
787: sources, which also favors UC and compact \hii\ regions. We were able
788: to successfully resolve the KDA towards 84\% of UC regions, 89\% of
789: compact regions, and 29\% of diffuse regions. Our success rate is
790: 42\% when all sources are included.
791:
792: % hisa success
793: The \hisa\ method is more successful than the \hiea\ method at making
794: KDA determinations. We were able to resolve the KDA for 87\% of {\it
795: all} \hii\ regions: 99\% of UC, 89\% of compact, and 64\% of diffuse
796: \hii\ regions. Paper I found that UC and compact \hii\ regions have
797: similar, and strong, molecular emission properties. This leads to a
798: higher success rate for these regions in the \hisa\ analysis.
799:
800: Our KDA resolutions are approximately in the ratio of 2 to 1 for far
801: verses near distances. There is about twice as much Galactic plane
802: area within the solar circle spanned by far KDA distances compared to
803: near distances over our longitude range. Assuming a uniform surface
804: density of \hii\ regions, this ratio of 2 to 1 is what one would
805: expect from geometric effects alone. The ratio of far to near sources
806: is highest for UC and diffuse \hii\ regions (2.2 and 3.8,
807: respectively), and significantly lower for the compact \hii\ regions
808: (1.6). Because the diffuse regions are large in angular extent, one
809: may expect that this large angular size is due to proximity to the
810: Sun. These results imply that diffuse \hii\ regions are truly large
811: and extended: their population is evenly spread throughout the inner
812: Galaxy. The low ratio of far to near compact \hii\ regions implies
813: two possibilities: (1) compact \hii\ regions are truly more common
814: close to the Sun, or (2) UC and compact \hii\ regions are not distinct
815: classifications and many compact \hii\ regions would be classified as
816: ultra compact if placed at the far distance.
817:
818: We believe that option (1) above is unlikely, and that the UC and compact
819: \hii\ regions are not distinct classes of object. The UC \hii\ regions
820: in our sample were found using infrared color criteria from the IRAS
821: point source catalog. As shown by \citet{conti04}, IRAS color criterion
822: are not unique to UC \hii\ regions; giant \hii\ regions (\hii\ regions
823: with $> 10^{50}$ Lyman continuum photons s$^{-1}$) occupy the same
824: infrared color-space as UC \hii\ regions. The distinction between UC
825: and compact \hii\ regions is therefore likely one largely of angular size.
826: %This result is corroborated by the mean
827: %distance to these classifications (assuming a uniform longitude
828: %distribution for each classification), with UC \hii\ regions having the
829: %highest mean distance ($8.9\pm 0.9$ kpc), diffuse \hii\ regions the next
830: %highest ($8.6 \pm 0.9$ kpc), and compact \hii\ regions the lowest ($7.7
831: %\pm 1.0$ kpc).
832:
833: The ratio of far to near sources is similar for both KDA resolution
834: methods; the ratio for all three \hii\ region classifications is 1.9
835: for the \hiea\ method and 2.1 for the \hisa\ method. As mentioned in
836: \S \ref{sec:resolve}, a null result in the \hiea\ method (no
837: absorption between the RRL velocity and the tangent point velocity)
838: implies the near distance while a null result in the \hisa\ method (no
839: absorption) implies the far distance.
840: %When the final determinations are compared, the ratio of
841: %far to near final determinations for sources with \hisa\ determinations
842: %is again 1.9, while the ratio is 2.1 for the \hiea\ analysis.
843: That these two methods return a similar ratio of far verses near sources
844: implies that our results are not heavily influenced by a lack of
845: absorption.
846:
847: % table
848: With resolved distance ambiguities, we can transform the \hii\ region's
849: velocity into a distance using a rotation curve. We use the
850: \citet{mcclure07} rotation curve because it is the most densely sampled
851: rotation curve extent, and includes data from both the first and the
852: fourth Galactic quadrants. Table \ref{tab:2} summarizes the parameters
853: derived by the resolution of the distance ambiguity for our sample of
854: 291 \hii\ regions. Listed are the source name, together with the
855: parameters derived from the \hiea\ and \hisa\ analyses, the KDA resolved
856: distance from the Sun, $D_\sun$ (kpc), and the height above the Galactic
857: plane, $z$ (pc). The derived \hiea\ parameters include the maximum
858: velocity of \hi\ absorption, $V_{\rm max}$, whether \hi\ absorption was
859: detected within $10 \kms$ of the RRL velocity, the near/far KDA
860: resolution, and the confidence parameter for this determination, CEA.
861: The derived \hisa\ parameters include the near/far KDA resolution, and
862: the confidence parameter for this determination, CSA. For sources whose
863: \hiea\ and \hisa\ KDA resolutions disagree, the KDA resolution that we
864: adopt is marked with an asterisk. The distances for sources that the
865: \hiea\ analysis located at the tangent point and for which the \hisa\
866: analysis was able to resolve the KDA are the \hisa\ distances. In
867: \S\ref{sec:agree} we describe how we resolve these discrepancies.
868: %For sources at tangent point....
869:
870: \subsection{H\titleI\ Emission-Absorption verses H\titleI\ Self-Absorption}
871: The \hisa\ analysis can resolve the KDA for sources that cannot be
872: resolved using the \hiea\ method. For the \hiea\ analysis we make no
873: attempt to resolve the KDA for sources within 10 \kms\ of the tangent
874: point velocity, as any determination would be unreliable. Because
875: \hisa\ relies on background clouds at the same velocity, the reliability
876: of \hisa\ is independent of the RRL velocity. The top row of Figure
877: \ref{fig:problems}, shows the \hisa\ spectra of C31.58$+$0.10 and U45.93$-$0.40,
878: sources with RRL velocities within 10 \kms\ of the tangent point
879: velocity. For C31.58$+$0.10, there is significant absorption at the
880: same velocity as the associated CO gas, implying the near distance.
881: For U45.93$-$0.40, however, there is no absorption at the RRL
882: velocity, implying the far distance.
883:
884: The \hisa\ method can also resolve the KDA for lines of sight with
885: multiple \hii\ regions. If there are two \hii\ regions along a line of
886: sight, the \hiea\ analysis cannot determine which \hii\ region is
887: causing the absorption. The bottom row of Figure \ref{fig:problems}
888: illustrates this point using the \hii\ regions C28.31$-$0.02a and
889: C28.31$-$0.02b. This line of sight has two \hii\ regions, one at 35.8
890: \kms\ and one at 92.4 \kms\ \citep{lockman89}. Figure
891: \ref{fig:problems} shows how \hisa\ can be used to resolve the KDA for
892: this source. The \hii\ region at 35.8 \kms\ (C28.31$-$0.02a) does not
893: show absorption at the RRL velocity and must lie at the far distance.
894: The \hii\ region at 92.4 \kms\ (C28.31$-$0.02b) does show absorption at
895: the RRL velocity, and thus lies at the near distance.
896:
897: % more complete sample
898: The use of both methods gives a more robust \hii\ region KDA resolution.
899: The \hiea\ method solves the KDA for 6 sources that could not be
900: resolved using the \hisa\ method. We are able to resolve the KDA for an
901: additional 138 sources using the \hisa\ method. Of these 138 sources,
902: 72 were placed at the tangent point in the \hiea\ analysis, 36 are lines
903: of sight with multiple \hii\ regions, and 30 did not show absorption
904: above the noise level in the \hiea\ analysis.
905:
906: % agreement between methods
907: \subsection{Agreement Between H\titleI\,Self-Absorption and H\titleI\ Emission/Absorption \label{sec:agree}}
908: In general our two methods are in good agreement. For sources not
909: assigned to the tangent point in the \hiea\ analysis, and for which
910: associated \cor\ was detected in Paper I, we find an 79\% agreement rate
911: between the two methods. We estimate the robustness of each method by
912: comparing sources that have ``A'' confidence parameters in one method
913: against all sources in the other. For our \hiea\ ``A'' sources, the
914: \hisa\ KDA determination agrees 84\% of the time. The same analysis
915: using ``A'' \hisa\ sources shows an 97\% agreement with the \hiea\
916: analysis results. Although the \hisa\ method is able to resolve the KDA
917: for more sources (cf. \S\ref{sec:discussion}), it appears to be less
918: robust than the \hiea\ method. \citet{busfield06} found in single
919: pointing CO measurements towards 94 massive young stellar objects that
920: the \hisa\ method was $\sim 80\%$ accurate, in agreement with our results.
921:
922: % Causes of disagreement
923: There are many possible reasons why an \hiea\ and \hisa\ KDA resolution
924: may disagree for any given \hii\ region:
925: \begin{enumerate}
926:
927: \item Molecular gas at the near distance may not produce \hisa\ due to
928: warming of the \cor\ gas. This appears to be the case for
929: U23.96+0.15, U25.38$-$0.18, and U34.26+0.15. For these regions, the
930: \hiea\ analysis is unambiguous and places the \hii\ region at the near
931: distance. The molecular material is of a morphology and intensity that
932: a misassignment by Paper I is unlikely. These are well known bright
933: \hii\ region complexes with high infrared luminosity. The molecular
934: material surrounding these regions is probably heated and thus produces
935: a poor absorption signal. All of these regions have associated \cor\
936: gas with higher than average excitation temperatures (see Paper I). If
937: $T_s = 30 \K$, instead of 10~K (as we assumed in \S \ref{sec:hisa}), we
938: would need a $W_{\rm 13CO}$ value $\sim 30\%$ higher to produce the same
939: absorption signal.
940: % t_ex for these regions is 16.0, 20.7, 15.8 respectively.
941:
942: % insufficient column
943: \item Molecular gas associated with \hii\ regions may not produce \hisa\
944: because of insufficient column density of cold \hi. In \S
945: \ref{sec:hisa}, we calculate that a $W_{\rm 13CO}$ value of $\sim
946: 10$~K~\kms\ is required to produce measurable absorption ($W_{\rm
947: 13CO}$ is proportional to column density). Sources that do not
948: produce absorption are assigned to the far distance, possibly in
949: error. If an insufficient column density of \cor\ is an issue, the
950: ratio of far to near sources should increase with decreasing values of
951: $W_{\rm 13CO}$. We plot in Figure \ref{fig:wco_vs_nf} the ratio of
952: far to near sources verses the average \hii\ region $W_{\rm 13CO}$
953: value. In this figure, the $W_{\rm 13CO}$ values are binned by 5 K
954: \kms\ intervals. The ratio of far to near sources shown in the solid
955: line results from the 75\% threshold criterion, whereas the dashed
956: line results from the 85\% threshold criterion. The $0-5$ K \kms\
957: bin does show a higher ratio of far to near determinations. There are no near sources in either
958: the $75\%$ threshold bin nor the $85\%$ threshold bin; the ratio is
959: undefined. There are, however, only 5 sources in the $75\%$ $0-5$ K
960: \kms\ bin and 4 sources in the $85\%$ bin. The sources in
961: the 0$-$5 K \kms\ bin all have a confidence parameter value of ``B'' and
962: therefore their \hisa\ resolutions are less robust. We conclude that
963: \hisa\ suffers no near/far bias if the average $W_{\rm 13CO}$ value is
964: at least 5 K \kms. Therefore, \hisa\ can be caused even by relatively
965: low column densities of \cor.
966:
967: \item There may be no \hisa\ signal because of a lack of warm background
968: \hi. The observable result of such a situation would be a lack of
969: absorption at the velocity of \cor\ emission.
970:
971: % no hot background gas
972: %Similarly, there may be no \hisa\ signal because of a lack of warm
973: %background \hi. The observable result of such a situation would again
974: %be a lack of absorption at the velocity of \cor\ emission.
975: %\citet{gibson05} find that $\sim 4\%$ of ({\it l, b, v}) positions
976: %display \hisa\ features. Assuming this is a fair census of the cold gas
977: %in our Galaxy, the problem of not having warm \hi\ to absorb against is
978: %likely rare, but may affect a few \hii\ regions in our sample.
979:
980: % cold foreground HI, background HII regions
981: \item Cold \hi\ at the near distance not associated with molecular
982: clouds may cause a \hisa\ signal when the \hii\ region lies at the far
983: distance. This appears to be the case for U42.11$-$0.44. In this
984: situation, a \hii\ region at the far distance is incorrectly assigned
985: to the near distance in the \hisa\ analysis.
986: \hisa\ is frequently caused by \hi\ gas not inside molecular clouds
987: \citep[see ][]{peters83, bania84, peters87}. \citet{gibson00} found
988: that most \hisa\ features in the 21cm \hi\ Canadian Galactic Plane
989: (outer Galaxy) Survey, a survey that is very similar to the VGPS and SGPS, have
990: no obvious \co\ counterpart.
991: %\citet{gibson05} found \hisa\
992: %features in $4\%$ of the voxels they searched in the Canadian Galactic
993: %Plane Survey \citet[CGPS; ][]{taylor03}.\ldacom{how much of GRS has
994: %clouds? need to do more complete analysis here}.
995: %This result is in contrast to \citet{kolpak02}, who found that most \hi\
996: %opacity was caused by \hi\ associated with molecular gas based on the
997: %correlation between \hi\ opacity and molecular material.
998: We attempt to remove errors caused by cold \hi\ not in molecular clouds
999: by analyzing the VGPS and SGPS ({\it l, b\/}) images at the velocity of
1000: the molecular gas. We require the absorbing \hi\ gas to have a similar
1001: spatial morphology as the \cor\ emission.
1002:
1003: % velocity crowding
1004: \item Velocity blending may confuse the \hisa\ analysis by combining two
1005: unrelated clouds along the line of sight. We used larger molecular
1006: clouds in our analysis, instead of the molecular clumps identified in
1007: Paper I. The emission from a molecular cloud associated with an \hii\
1008: region at the near distance may be blended with that of a molecular
1009: cloud at the far distance, diminishing the \hisa\ signal. Conversely, a
1010: molecular cloud at the far distance may be confused with molecular
1011: emission at the near distance that is associated with an \hii\ region,
1012: thus causing a \hisa\ signal. We inspected the ({\it l, b}) single
1013: channel VGPS and SGPS images to look for the signature of velocity
1014: crowding: clouds that go from absorption into emission. This visual
1015: signature, however, could also be caused by a variable background, and
1016: therefore velocity crowding may remain a problem.
1017: %Based on the
1018: %frequency of molecular clouds in the GRS, we estimate that this event
1019: %occurs relatively infrequently....
1020: %Our method makes the assumption that connected cloud structures in
1021: %({\it l, b, v\/})-space are physically connected as well. This may not
1022: %be the case, as gas at both the near and the far distance share the
1023: %same velocity. Gas at the far distance will not contribute to any
1024: %absorption signal, and if there are two clouds superposed, the
1025: %absorption signal will be diminished.
1026: %The signature of this problem is a source that is assigned to the far
1027: %distance through \hisa\ and to the near distance through \hiea.
1028: %12 vs 6
1029:
1030: %{\it We estimate the occurrence of a near and a far cloud sharing the same
1031: %line of sight using a Monte Carlo simulation. The average size of the
1032: %clouds selected via the method above is $xx {\rm sq.} \arcmin$. There
1033: %are approximately xx such molecular clouds in the GRS. We distributed
1034: %xx clouds into a three dimensional volume, 25% at the near distance
1035: %and 75\% at the far distance. We found that Therefore, a line of sight
1036: %will intersect a cloud 20\% of the time. %The formula is {sum (300 2) =
1037: %(0.20)^2 * (0.80)^298 = }. While quite rough, this calculation allows
1038: %us to estimate that shows that fewer than xx of our 26x sources with
1039: %associated \cor\ could show blended \cor\ at both the near and the far
1040: %distance. This small number of sources would be easily separated by
1041: %morphological associations.
1042: %(prob of hitting cloud at far distance in l, b, v)
1043: %= (area of all clouds at the far distance / area of GRS) * (5 km/s /
1044: %effective average km/s area of GRS)
1045: %Small regions are preferable because they better trace the molecular
1046: %gas....
1047: %It is clear from these criteria that UC \hii\ regions (as long as they
1048: %are detected with the synthesized $1\arcmin$ VGPS beam) are the best
1049: %sources for this study. Their compact nature minimizes background
1050: %fluctuations which arise from sampling different directions in the on-
1051: %and off-source spectra. They also tend to be strong continuum sources,
1052: %so the absorption they produce is strong. Diffuse sources present the
1053: %most challenging analysis as they are generally weak continuum sources
1054: %that are extended over $\sim 10\arcmin$ size scales.}
1055:
1056: % hiea errors
1057: \item A lack of cold \hi\ between the \hi\ region and the tangent point velocities
1058: may lead to inaccuracies in the \hiea\ analysis. \citet{bania84}
1059: estimate that there is a cold \hi\ cloud every 0.7 kpc, on average. At
1060: the low end of our longitude range, $l=15\arcdeg$, our criterion that
1061: places sources at the tangent point if their RRL velocity is within 10
1062: \kms\ of the tangent point velocity corresponds to about 0.7 kpc. At
1063: the high end of our longitude range, $l=56\arcdeg$, it corresponds to
1064: about 2 kpc. Therefore, we do not believe that a lack of \hi\ between
1065: the source and the tangent point is a large problem.
1066:
1067: \item One may mistake \hisa\ for \hiea. The two methods do not
1068: necessarily have unique spectral signatures, because in both cases the line width is
1069: supersonic. Visual inspection of the integrated intensity maps should
1070: reduce errors from this confusion. If the absorption is caused by the
1071: \hii\ region's radio continuum, the morphology will match that of the
1072: 21cm continuum emission; if it is caused by the \hi\ inside molecular
1073: clouds, it will match the \cor\ emission.
1074:
1075: \item Fluctuations (from either the background or from noise) may result
1076: in a false absorption signal in the \hiea\ analysis. The error from
1077: background and noise fluctuations should also be minimized from visual
1078: inspection of the integrated intensity maps. Background features that
1079: may look like absorption features in the spectra will not match the 21cm
1080: continuum emission when seen in the ({\it l, b}) maps.
1081:
1082: \item Finally, the 20\% disagreement rate may be caused by inaccurate
1083: \cor/\hii\ associations in Paper I. For example, the molecular material
1084: may lie at the near distance whereas the \hii\ region is at the far
1085: distance. It is difficult to estimate the occurrence of inaccurate
1086: \cor/\hii\ associations because of the many possible errors just
1087: discussed. There are probably a very small number of mis-associations,
1088: however, as the aforementioned errors can account for many of the
1089: discrepancies between the results of the \hiea\ and \hisa\ methods.
1090: \end{enumerate}
1091:
1092: %\noindent All of these sources of error probably contribute a very small number of
1093: %erroneous KDA determinations in the \hiea\ analysis considering the
1094: %nearly 95\% success rate estimated previously.
1095:
1096: We believe the \hiea\ KDA analysis to be more robust than the \hisa\
1097: analysis for \hii\ regions. \hiea\ directly measures the absorption
1098: from the free-free emission of an \hii\ region. The \hiea\ KDA
1099: resolutions are more robust because the presence of absorption at
1100: velocities beyond the RRL velocity makes the KDA resolution unambiguous.
1101: Also, the absorption caused by \hiea\ can be much stronger than that
1102: caused by \hisa\ as the continuum brightness temperature of \hii\
1103: regions at 21cm can be very high. Therefore, a smaller column density
1104: of \hi\ may produce absorption in the \hiea\ method compared to what is
1105: required in the in \hisa\ method. Our \hisa\ method is less direct, and
1106: uses molecular gas as a proxy for emission from the \hii\ region. The
1107: use of \cor\ as a proxy has many potential uncertainties, as enumerated
1108: above. The KDA resolutions made using the \hisa\ method remain slightly
1109: ambiguous even if absorption is present because there are many ways to
1110: create absorption at the same velocity as \cor\ emission.
1111: %\ldacom{I don't think numbers
1112: %of column density here are appropriate. HIEA requires an optical depth
1113: %of 0.7, while \hisa\ needs 0.12. This is misleading though because the
1114: %quantity of interest is column - column of HI fro HIEA and column of CO
1115: %for HISA.}
1116:
1117: For sources with a disagreement between the two methods, our final KDA
1118: determination is that found by the method with a confidence parameter
1119: value of ``A''. If both methods have the same confidence parameter
1120: value, we visually examine the spectra and images for evidence that one
1121: method has a more robust result. In general, we choose the distance
1122: determination of the \hiea\ method.
1123:
1124: % Is the \hi\ in the skins or in throughout the molecular clouds?
1125: %\subsection{Where is the absorbing HI?}
1126: %\ldacom{This analysis may be beyond the scope of this paper, but would
1127: %fit in with the work Julia is doing.}
1128: %There has been some debate recently about whether the \hisa\ signal is
1129: %produced by \hi\ in the outer skins of molecular clouds, or distributed
1130: %throughout. The skins of molecular clouds, where $A_{\rm V}$ is low,
1131: %should have enough \hi\ to produce a \hisa\ signal \citep[see][and
1132: %references therein]{jackson02}. This argument is partially based on the
1133: %observations of molecular clouds that show \hi\ halos (see references
1134: %given in \S \ref{sec:intro}). If a \hi\ halo is causing the \hisa\
1135: %signal, the edges of a molecular cloud at the near distance would show
1136: %strong \hisa, and the \hisa\ signal would decrease towards the center of
1137: %the cloud. The analysis of dark clouds, however, favors \hi\ being
1138: %distributed throughout the cloud \citep{li03, goldsmith05}. In this
1139: %scenario, the \hi\ population is maintained by cosmic rays dissociating
1140: %the H$_2$ molecules. Cosmic rays travel far into molecular clouds
1141: %producing \hi\ throughout. \citet{li03} show that if the \hi\
1142: %population in molecular clouds is maintained by cosmic rays, the \hi\
1143: %density is independent of the local gas density. The observational
1144: %consequence of this model in a cloud at the near distance is an inverse
1145: %relationship between \hi\ intensity (absorption) and \cor\ intensity (emission).
1146:
1147: %\ldacom{need to fix this} Our results do not support the hypothesis that the \hisa\ signal is
1148: %caused by \hi\ on the skin of the cloud, but they also do not show
1149: %strong support for the signal arising from deep within the cloud.
1150: %Figure 2 of \citet{jackson02} plots \cor\ main beam temperatre verses
1151: %\hi\ main beam temperature from the BU-Aricebo Survey for the molecular
1152: %cloud at ({\it l, b}\/) = 45.6+0.3. This figure shows an inverse linear
1153: %relationships between \cor\ intensity and \hi\ intensity: the brighter
1154: %the molecular emission, the dimmer the \hi. This implies that the \hi\
1155: %that is causing the absorption is distributed throughout the cloud,
1156: %instead of only in the skin.
1157: %For each \hii\ region with associated \cor\, we create a plot of \cor\
1158: %integrated intensity verses \hi\ integrated intensity. The velocity
1159: %range for this integration is again that of Paper I. If \hi\ is
1160: %distributed throughout the cloud, one would expect such a plot to show a
1161: %negative corrolation between the \hi\ and CO integrated intensities. If
1162: %the absorbing \hi\ is in the skins of the clouds, one would expect a
1163: %positive correlation, then a plateau. Our plots are similar Figure 2 of
1164: %\citet{jackson02}, which does show a high degree of negative correlation
1165: %for the molecular cloud at ({\it l, b}\/) = 45.6+0.3. Only half of our
1166: %clouds associated with \hii\ regions at the near distance show a high
1167: %degree of correlation. For \cor\ clumps at the far distance, the plots
1168: %show no correlation almost 75\% of the time. \hi\ is certainly present
1169: %in a halo around molecular clouds. We conclude that the temperature of
1170: %this \hi\ must be too high to produce measurable absorption.
1171:
1172: % Correlation with other catalogs
1173: \subsection{Agreement with Other Distance Determinations}
1174: Our KDA resolutions agree with most previously published distance
1175: determinations. We agree with $\sim 75\%$ of the determinations made
1176: previously using ${\rm H_2CO}$ absorption, and agree with $\sim 95\%$ of
1177: determinations made previously using \hiea. The adopted tangent point
1178: velocity depends on the adopted rotation curve, and therefore is not
1179: uniform from study to study. In our comparisons with previously
1180: published studies below, we disregard \hii\ regions located at the
1181: tangent point in either study to create a fair comparison. The sources
1182: for which our KDA resolution disagrees with a previously published KDA
1183: resolution are summarized in Table \ref{tab:3}, which lists the source
1184: name, our determination, the other author's determination, and the
1185: reference.
1186:
1187: \subsubsection{${\rm H_2CO}$ Absorption Distances}
1188: %h_2co is bad
1189: Our \hii\ region sample shares 50 non-tangent point nebulae with
1190: \citet{downes80}. We have 14 disagreements in KDA resolution, and one
1191: source which has multiple velocity components, U25.72+0.05. The
1192: second velocity for U25.72+0.05 was unknown to \citet{downes80}.
1193: %for
1194: %sources: U19.61$-$0.24, C19.61$-$0.13, U19.68$-$0.13, U20.08$-$0.14,
1195: %C22.76$-$0.49, C22.95$-$0.32, C22.98$-$0.36, C23.24$-$0.24,
1196: %C23.54$-$0.04, U23.96+0.15, U35.58$-$0.03, and U35.67$-$0.04.
1197: Seven of these sources \citet{downes80} assign to the near distance
1198: while we assign the far distance. These seven discrepancies can be
1199: explained if ${\rm H_2CO}$ is not detectable between the \hii\ region
1200: and the tangent point. The remaining seven discrepancies are
1201: difficult to explain. The rather high RMS noise of the VGPS and SGPS
1202: \hi\ data, however, may be a factor.
1203:
1204: %22.76 - good detection, Downes says many
1205: %abs. features between 55 and 103 \kms. 22.95 - same 23.54 - OH abs at
1206: %81 97
1207: %- internal disagreement
1208: %U23.96+0.15
1209: %U25.38-0.18
1210: %C18.95-0.02
1211: %U34.26+0.15
1212:
1213: We have 10 non-tangent point sources in common with \citet{wink82}, and
1214: disagree on three determinations, for: U19.61$-$0.24, U43.18$-$0.52, and U43.89$-$0.78. All
1215: three sources \citet{wink82} locate at the near distance, while we
1216: locate at the far distance.
1217:
1218: We have 9 non-tangent point sources in common with \citet{araya02},
1219: and disagree with three of their determinations. We disagree on
1220: U35.57+0.07, U35.58$-$0.03, and U50.32+0.68, all of which
1221: \citet{araya02} locate at the near distance. U35.58$-$0.03 was
1222: reobserved by the same group
1223: \citep{watson03} and their newer determination agrees with ours.
1224: \citet{kuchar94} agrees with our determination for U35.57+0.07, which we
1225: locate at the far distance with high confidence in both the \hisa\ and
1226: \hisa\ analyses. U50.32+0.68 is a very weak continuum source, but does
1227: appear to show true absorption at 68 \kms\ in our \hiea\ analysis,
1228: implying the far distance.
1229:
1230: We have 23 non-tangent point sources in common with \citet{watson03}.
1231: We disagree with five of their determinations for these 23 sources. We
1232: disagree on U50.32+0.68, which was mentioned previously. We are
1233: confident in our determination for U34.09+0.44 and U35.67-0.04, as the
1234: determinations in both \hiea\ and \hisa\ agree with high confidence. The \hisa\ analysis for U35.02+0.35 shows strong \hi\
1235: absorption near the velocity of \cor\ emission, although the
1236: velocities are very slightly different. We were unable to perform the
1237: \hiea\ analysis on U34.40+0.23 since it is a very weak radio continuum
1238: source, but the \hisa\ analysis implies the far distance. For
1239: U34.40+0.23, this is particularly strange since it appears to be
1240: associated with an infrared dark cloud. As infrared dark clouds are
1241: seen in silhouette against the infrared background, they most likely
1242: lie at the near distance. This could be a case where \hisa\ is
1243: produced within the cloud itself, or the \hii\ region is not
1244: associated with the infrared dark cloud.
1245:
1246: We have 20 non-tangent point sources in common with \citet{sewilo04},
1247: and disagree on three determinations. We disagree with their
1248: determination for U23.27+0.08, C23.24$-$0.24, and U24.50$-$0.04. The
1249: \hii\ region U23.27+0.08 is quite weak and we were unable to perform
1250: the \hiea\ analysis. Using the \hisa\ analysis we assign the near distance,
1251: although with low confidence. For C23.24$-$0.24, we assign the near
1252: distance in both analyses, while \citet{sewilo04} assign the far
1253: distance based on the detection of a molecular cloud in absorption at
1254: 95.6 \kms.
1255: %We preform a \hisa\
1256: %analysis of this molecular cloud, and place it at the near distance, in
1257: %front of the \hii\ region.
1258: We detect absorption at 119 \kms in our \hiea\ analysis for U24.50$-$0.04, implying the far
1259: distance. \citet{sewilo04} argue for the near distance. This \hii\ region is so
1260: close to the tangent point, however, that the KDA resolution has little
1261: impact on the assigned distance.
1262: %For three
1263: %sources we were able to resolve the distance ambiguity using \hisa\
1264: %which \citet{sewilo04} assigned to the tangent point.
1265:
1266: \subsubsection{{\rm H{\small I}} Emission/Absorption Distances}
1267: We share 32 non-tangent point determinations with
1268: \citet{kuchar94} and disagree on U44.26+0.10 and C51.36+0.00.
1269: The \hii\ region U44.26+0.10 is too close to the tangent point for the
1270: \hiea\ analysis, but the \hisa\ analysis places it at the far
1271: distance. Our \hisa\ analysis also shows that C51.36+0.00 is at the
1272: far distance. There is an absorption line in the \hisa\ analysis near
1273: the velocity of peak \cor\ emission, but this line is caused by a
1274: large \hisa\ feature that is not associated with \cor.
1275:
1276: We have 36 non-tangent point sources in common with \citet{kolpak03}.
1277: We disagree on the KDA resolution for U23.71+0.17, C25.41$-$0.25, and
1278: C30.78$-$0.03. For U23.71+0.17, our two method disagree. The \hiea\
1279: method favors the near distance, since the absorption lines are quite
1280: strong and appear only up to the RRL velocity. Unfortunately,
1281: C25.41$-$0.25 is too weak a continuum source for us to perform the
1282: \hiea\ analysis. The \hisa\ analysis of this source implies the far
1283: distance with low confidence. \citet{downes80} also assign the far
1284: distance to C25.41$-$0.25. For C30.78$-$0.03, we detect absorption at
1285: 97 \kms, which is within 10 \kms\ of the 91.6 \kms\ RRL velocity.
1286: \citet{kolpak03} detect absorption at 122 \kms\ that is not present in
1287: our analysis. In the \hisa\ analysis, there is a strong absorption
1288: feature at the same velocity and with the same line width as a \cor\
1289: feature, implying the near distance.
1290:
1291: We share six non-tangent point sources in common with \citet{fish03},
1292: and agree on all except for U28.20-0.05. This source lies near the
1293: tangent point, but our \hisa\ analysis shows no \hi\ absorption at the
1294: velocity of \cor\ emission, which implies the far distance.
1295:
1296: %\citet{sewilo04} find two RRL velocities for U28.20-0.05, while
1297: %\citet{fish03} use only the higher velocity, near 100 \kms. Paper I
1298: %found no molecular material near the lower velocity
1299:
1300: \subsection{Catalog of H\titleII\ Region Properties}
1301: As was done in Paper I, we provide our results online in an \hii\ region
1302: catalog\footnote[2]{http://www.bu.edu/iar/hii\_regions}. This website
1303: now contains all the molecular line data from Paper I, as well as all
1304: data from Tables \ref{tab:1} and \ref{tab:2}, the spectra from which we
1305: made the distance determinations in both the \hisa\ and \hiea\ analyses,
1306: and images we used to assist our KDA resolution. This website should
1307: become a valuable tool for the study of \hii\ regions.
1308:
1309: \section{DISCUSSION \label{sec:discussion}}
1310: The distribution of the 266 \hii\ regions with resolved distance
1311: ambiguities projected onto the Galactic plane is shown in Figure
1312: \ref{fig:faceon}. The left panel of Figure \ref{fig:faceon} shows a
1313: scatter plot of the data. In the right panel, the data are binned into
1314: $0.25 \times 0.25$ kpc pixels, and then smoothed with a 5 pixel Gaussian
1315: filter.
1316: %The strongest concentration of \hii\ regions is from
1317: %$20\arcdeg$ to $30\arcdeg$, corresponding to the location of the Scutum
1318: %arm.
1319: Figure \ref{fig:faceon} appears to show some hints of Galactic
1320: structure. There are two circular arc segments centered at the Galactic
1321: Center, near where the Scutum arm (at a Galactocentric radius of
1322: $\sim 4.5$ kpc) and the Sagittarius arm (at a Galactocentric radius of
1323: $\sim 6$ kpc) are thought to be located. The most striking features of
1324: this plot though are where the \hii\ regions are {\it not} located,
1325: namely at a Galactocentric radius of $\sim 5$ kpc and within 3.5 kpc of
1326: the Galactic Center. We believe the paucity of \hii\ regions within 3.5
1327: kpc of the Galactic center is further evidence of a Galactic bar of
1328: half-length 4 kpc, as described by \citet{benjamin05}. This region is
1329: very well sampled, with almost 100 \hii\ regions within $l = 25\arcdeg$.
1330: These results are supported by the histogram of Galactocentric radii
1331: shown in Figure \ref{fig:rgal}. An \hii\ region's Galactocentric radius
1332: is a function only of the rotation curve, and not of any KDA distance
1333: resolution. Figure \ref{fig:rgal} shows concentrations of \hii\ regions
1334: at Galactocentric radii of 4.5 and 6 kpc. There are large streaming
1335: motions found at these radii \citep{mcclure07}.
1336: %Spiral arm locations at Galactocentric radii of 4.5 and
1337: %6 kpc are also implied by large streaming motions found at these radii
1338: %\citep{mcclure07}.
1339:
1340: %Where spiral arms are oriented radially with respect to the sun, errors
1341: %in the rotation curve have little effect and spiral arm structure, if
1342: %present, is more easily traced. Where the arms are oriented
1343: %tangentially with respect to the sun, errors in distance blends arms
1344: %together. This appears to be the case for the Scutum and Sagittarius
1345: %arms, as they appear more dramatically near the tangent point distance,
1346: %and appear smeared together at their furthest distance from the Sun.
1347:
1348: %\ldacom{should we include this? It is interesting....]}The locations of
1349: %the spiral arm-like features and the paucity of \hii\ regions within a
1350: %Galactocentric radius of 3.5 kpc is in fact independant of any distance
1351: %determinations. We ran a simple Monte Carlo simulation where we
1352: %randomized the KDA determinations for our sample of 266 \hii\ regions
1353: %with successful distance determinations while maintaining the same
1354: %proportion of far to near sources ($\sim 2$ to 1). As shown in Figure
1355: %\ref{fig:fake_faceon}, the distances derived from these randomized KDA
1356: %determinations still show two spiral arm-like features and ad lack of
1357: %\hii\ regions interior to 3.5 kpc from the Galactic center.
1358:
1359: % large sample necessary
1360: %We believe a large sample of \hii\ regions is necessary to trace spiral
1361: %structure. The distance estimates suffer from a number of errors, most
1362: %significantly the error in the assumed rotation curve. Errors in the
1363: %rotation curve translate into distance errors of $\sim 10 \%$.
1364: %Structures that are oriented radially, however, The
1365: %impact of these errors can be minimized with a large sample of \hii\
1366: %regions, as the \hii\ regions will trace spiral structure radially
1367: %\hii\ regions also have peculiar velocities which make
1368: %the radial position of the \hii\ region inaccurate.
1369:
1370: %Figure \ref{fig:distance} shows the distribution of distances from the
1371: %Sun for those regions for which we were able to resolve the distance
1372: %ambiguity. There is little real structure in this plot, save from a
1373: %broad peak near 8 \kpc.
1374:
1375: % z height
1376: The distribution of height above the Galactic plane for \hii\ regions
1377: with resolved distance ambiguities is shown in Figure \ref{fig:height}.
1378: The top left panel of Figure \ref{fig:height} is a stacked histogram;
1379: the top curve in this panel shows the entire distribution and the
1380: shadings represent the proportion of this total made up by the
1381: categories of \hii\ regions. Clockwise from top right are the
1382: individual histograms for the UC, compact, and diffuse nebulae. The
1383: entire distribution appears to be Gaussian, with a FWHM of 68~pc (the
1384: standard deviation of the z height, $\sigma_z$, is 42 pc), centered at
1385: $-11$~pc.
1386: %The center of this distribution implies that the Sun lies
1387: %8~pc above the plane of the Galaxy.
1388: This result is slightly lower than that found by other authors, who
1389: generally find an offset of $\sim 20$~pc \citep[see ][and references
1390: therein]{reed06}. While we are only sampling $|b| < 1\arcdeg$ in this
1391: study, the number of \hii\ regions outside the latitude range is small
1392: and should not affect our results significantly if included in our
1393: sample.
1394:
1395: % seperation by type
1396: One may expect that UC regions, being younger, would have had less time
1397: to drift from their natal environments, and thus would have a narrow
1398: distribution of heights above the Galactic plane. Our results show that
1399: UC, compact, and diffuse \hii\ regions in fact share similar
1400: distributions, with $\sigma_z$ values near 40 pc. A Gaussian fit to
1401: each distribution shows some segregation, with FWHM values of 60 pc, 64
1402: pc, and 96 pc for UC, compact and diffuse regions, respectively. A
1403: Kolmagorov-Smirnov (K-S) test, however, reveals that these differences
1404: are not significant. The K-S test assesses the likelihood that two
1405: samples are drawn from the same parent distribution. We find a 35\%
1406: probability that the UC and compact \hii\ region scale heights are drawn
1407: from the same parent distribution, a 15\% probability for the compact
1408: and diffuse \hii\ region scale heights, and a 9\% probability for
1409: compact and diffuse \hii\ region scale heights.
1410:
1411: Values of $\sigma_z$ near 40 pc have been found by many authors. In
1412: their study of UC and compact \hii\ regions, \citet{paladini04} showed
1413: that for the sources with the most secure distance determinations,
1414: $\sigma_z \simeq 40$ pc. In a study of UC \hii\ region candidates,
1415: \citet{bronfman00} estimate $\sigma_z \simeq 30$ pc. \citet{giveon05}
1416: estimate in their sample of UC \hii\ region candidates that $\sigma_z
1417: \simeq 30$ pc as well. Neither the \citet{bronfman00} nor the
1418: \citet{giveon05} study makes distance determinations for their \hii\
1419: regions, and therefore these scale height estimates may be uncertain.
1420: %In Paper I, UC and compact \hii\ regions were
1421: %found to show very similar molecular properties as well.
1422:
1423: \section{SUMMARY}
1424: We resolve the kinematic distance ambiguity (KDA) for 266 inner Galaxy
1425: \hii\ regions out of a sample of 291 using the 21cm \hi\ VLA Galactic
1426: Plane Survey and the \cor\ BU-FCRAO Galactic Ring Survey. Our sample of
1427: \hii\ regions is divided into three subsets: ultra compact (UC),
1428: compact, and diffuse nebulae. We use two methods to resolve the
1429: distance ambiguity for each \hii\ region: \hi\ Emission/Absorption
1430: (\hiea) and \hi\ self-absorption (\hisa). There is an 79\% agreement
1431: rate between the two methods. We find that the \hiea\ method is more
1432: robust than the \hisa\ method for \hii\ regions, but the \hisa\ method
1433: is able to resolve the distance ambiguity for almost twice the number of
1434: sources. We estimate the robustness of the \hiea\ and \hisa\ methods
1435: as implemented here at 97\% and 84\%, respectively. Using \hisa\ we can
1436: resolve the distance ambiguity for lines of sight with two \hii\ regions
1437: at different velocities, and for \hii\ regions near the tangent point.
1438: We find that the \hisa\ signal can be caused by modest column densities
1439: of \cor\ ($W_{\rm 13CO}$ values down to $\sim 5$ K \kms) and therefore
1440: the utility of this method is not limited to large, dense molecular
1441: clouds. We have greater success for both methods with UC and compact
1442: \hii\ regions, as their strong radio continuum emission and association
1443: with molecular material make the distance determinations unambiguous in
1444: most cases.
1445:
1446: Our sample of \hii\ regions is approximately in the ratio 2 to 1 for far
1447: verses near KDA resolutions. The ratio of far to near UC and diffuse
1448: \hii\ regions is 2.2 to 1 and 3.8 to 1, respectively. For compact \hii\ regions, the
1449: ratio is 1.6 to 1. This implies that compact \hii\ regions are not a
1450: physically defined classification, but rather that many compact \hii\
1451: regions are so classified because of their proximity to the Sun. The
1452: diffuse \hii\ regions' large angular sizes are not due to proximity to
1453: the Sun.
1454:
1455: Our KDA resolutions agree with most previously published results. Our
1456: results agree with $\sim 95$\% of the KDA resolutions found previously
1457: using the \hiea\ method, and with $\sim 75$\% of those found using ${\rm
1458: H_2CO}$ absorption. Some of the disagreements with the results of ${\rm
1459: H_2CO}$ absorption studies can be explained by the relatively low
1460: line of sight filling factor of ${\rm H_2CO}$.
1461:
1462: Our sample of \hii\ regions appears to trace aspects of Galactic
1463: structure such as circular arc segments at Galactocentric radii of 4.5
1464: and 6 kpc, and a lack of \hii\ regions within 3.5 of the Galactic
1465: center. There is a paucity of \hii\ regions at a Galactocentric
1466: radius of 5 kpc. These features are largely independent of any distance
1467: determination. The scale height for all three \hii\ region
1468: classifications is around 40 pc.
1469:
1470: %Our results imply that diffuse \hii\ regions are a well sampled, evolved
1471: %population of \hii\ regions, while UC and compact \hii\ regions are not
1472: %distinct classifications. The scale height of the diffuse \hii\ regions
1473: %in our sample is 70pc, while the scale height for UC and compact \hii\
1474: %regions is $\sim 40$ pc. The scale height is an \hii\ region should
1475: %increase with age as the region drifts from its natal environment that
1476: %is likely in the plane. Therefore, diffuse \hii\ regions may represent
1477: %the oldest population of \hii\ regions.
1478:
1479: %A Gaussian fit to the height above the plane does show some small
1480: %differences between the three classifications, but these differences are
1481: %not significant.
1482: %One would expect that, assuming diffuse \hii\ regions
1483: %represent an older evolutionary stage and have had more time to move
1484: %away from their natal environment, their scale height would be larger.
1485: %That all three classifications have similar scale heights implies that
1486: %either \hii\ regions do not move significantly from their birthplaces.
1487:
1488: \acknowledgments Here we use molecular line data from the Boston
1489: University-FCRAO Galactic Ring Survey (GRS). The GRS is a joint project
1490: of Boston University and the Five College Radio Astronomy Observatory,
1491: funded by the National Science Foundation under grants AST-9800334,
1492: AST-0098562, and AST-0100793. We also use \hi\ data from the VLA
1493: Galactic Plane Survey (VGPS). The VGPS is supported by a grant from the
1494: Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and from the
1495: National Science Foundation.
1496: \nraoblurb
1497:
1498: %%%% one needs to do the *entire* bibliography in the style below before it
1499: %%%% works: leaving out only one []{} construction screws things up....
1500:
1501: \begin{thebibliography} {}
1502:
1503: %% ApJ rules: up to 3 authors, list them all; > 3, use One et al.
1504: %%
1505: %%\bibitem[Auri\`ere(1982)] {aur82} Auri\`ere, M. 1982, \aap, 109, 301
1506:
1507: %%\bibitem[Allen, Heaton \& Kaufman (2004)] {allen04}
1508: %%Allen,R.J., Heaton, H.I., \& Kaufman, M.J. 2004 \apj, 608, 314
1509:
1510: %\bibitem[Altenhoff et al. (1979)] {altenhoff79}
1511: %Altenhoff, W.J., Downes, D., Pauls, T., \& Schraml, J. 1979, \aaps, 35, 23
1512:
1513: %\bibitem[Afflerbach et al. (1996)]{afflerbach96}
1514: %Afflerbach, A., Churchwell, E., Accord, J.M., Hofner, P., Kurtz, S., \&
1515: %DePree, C.G. 1996, \apjs, 106, 423
1516:
1517: \bibitem[Anderson et al. (2008)] {anderson08}
1518: Anderson, L. D., Bania, T. M., Jackson, J. M., Clemens, D. P., Heyer,
1519: M., Simon, R., Shah, R. Y., Rathborne, J. M. 2008, submitted (Paper
1520: I)
1521:
1522: \bibitem[Araya et al. (2002)] {araya02}
1523: Araya, E., Hofner, P., Churchwell, E., \& Kurtz, S. 2002, \apjs, 138, 63
1524:
1525: %%\bibitem[Balser et al. (1994)] {bbbrw94}
1526: %%Balser, D.S., Bania, T.M., Brockway, C.J., Rood, R.T., \& Wilson, T.L.
1527: %%1994, \apj, 430, 667
1528:
1529: %%\bibitem[Balser et al. (1997)] {bbrw97}
1530: %%Balser, D.S., Bania, T.M., Rood, R.T., \& Wilson, T.L. 1997, \apj,
1531: %%483, 320
1532:
1533: %%\bibitem[Bania, Rood \& Balser (2002)] {brb02} Bania, T.M., Rood,
1534: %%R.T., \& Balser, D.S. 2002, Nature, 415, 54
1535:
1536: \bibitem[Bania \& Lockman (1984)]{bania84}
1537: Bania, T. M. \& Lockman, F. J., 1984, \apj, 54, 513
1538:
1539: %%\bibitem[Bania, Rood \& Wilson (1987)] {brw87}
1540: %%Bania, T.M., Rood, R.T., \& Wilson, T.L. 1987, \apj, 323, 30
1541:
1542: %%\bibitem[Bania et al. (1997)] {bbrww97}
1543: %%Bania, T.M., Balser, D.S., Rood, R.T., Wilson, T.L., \& Wilson, T.J.
1544: %%1997, \apjs, 113, 353
1545:
1546: %\bibitem[Benjamin et al. (2003)]{benjamin03}
1547: %Benjamin, R. A., et al. 2003, \pasp, 115, 953
1548:
1549: \bibitem[Benjamin et al.(2005)]{benjamin05}
1550: Benjamin, R. A., et al. 2005, \apj, 630, 149
1551:
1552: %\bibitem[Blitz, Fich, \& Stark (1982)]{blitz82}
1553: %Blitz, L., Fich, M., \& Stark, A.A. 1982, \apjs, 49, 183
1554:
1555: %\bibitem[Brand et al. (1984)]{brand84}
1556: %Brand, J., van der Bij, M.D.P., de Vries, C.P., Leene, A., Habing, H.J., Israel, F.P.,
1557: %de Graauw, T., van de Stadt, H., \& Wouterloot, J.G.A. 1984, \aap, 139, 181
1558:
1559: \bibitem[Brand(1986)]{brand86}
1560: Brand, J. 1986, PhD Thesis, Leiden Univ. (Netherlands)
1561:
1562: %\bibitem[Brogan et al. (2006)]{brogan06}
1563: %Brogan, C. L., Gelfand, J. D., Gaensler, B. M., Kassim, N. E., \& Lazio, T. J, 2006, /apj, 639, 25
1564:
1565: %\bibitem[Bronfman, Nyman, \& May (1996)]{bronfman96}
1566: %Bronfman, L., Nyman, L-A. \& May, J. 1996, \aaps, 115, 81
1567:
1568: \bibitem[Bronfman et al. (2000)]{bronfman00}
1569: Bronfman L., Casassus S., May J., Nyman L. A. 2000, \aap, 358, 521
1570:
1571: \bibitem[Burton (1971)]{burton71}
1572: Burton, W. B. 1971, \aap, 10, 76
1573:
1574: %\bibitem[Burton et al. (1975)] {burton75}
1575: %Burton, W. B., Gordon, M.A., Bania, T.M., \& Lockman, F.J. 1975,
1576: %\apj, 202, 30
1577:
1578: \bibitem[Burton \& Gordon (1978)]{burtongordon78}
1579: Burton, W. B. \& Gordon, M. A. 1978, \apj, 63, 7
1580:
1581: \bibitem[Burton, Liszt, \& Baker (1978)]{burton78}
1582: Burton, W. B., Liszt, H. S., \& Baker, P. L. 1978, \apj, 219, 67
1583:
1584: \bibitem[Busfield et al. (2006)]{busfield06}
1585: Busfield, A. L., Purcell, C. R., Hoare, M. G., Lumsden, S. L., Moore,
1586: T. J. T., Oudmaijer, R. D. 2006, \mnras, 366, 1096
1587:
1588: %\bibitem[Carey et al. (2007) in preperation]{carey07}
1589: %Carey, S. J., et al. 2007, forthcoming
1590:
1591: %%\bibitem[Chaison (1971)] {chas71}
1592: %%Chaison, E.J. 1971, \apjl, 167,61
1593:
1594: %\bibitem[Cesaroni, et al. (1991)]{cesaroni91}
1595: %Cesaroni, R., Walmsley, C.M., K\"{o}mpe, C., \& Churchwell, E. 1991,
1596: %\aap, 252, 278
1597:
1598: %\bibitem[Cintia, et al. (2006)]{cintia06}
1599: %Cintia, Q., Rood, R.T., Balser, D.S., \& Bania, T. M. 2006, \apjs, 165, 338
1600:
1601: \bibitem[Churchwell, Walmsley, \& Cesaroni (1990)]{churchwell90}
1602: Churchwell, E., Walmsley, C. M., \& Cesaroni, R. 1990, \aaps, 83, 119
1603:
1604: %bubbles
1605: %\bibitem[Churchwell et al. (2006)]{churchwell06}
1606: %Churchwell, E., et al. 2006, \apj, 649, 759
1607:
1608: \bibitem[Clemens(1985)]{clemens85}
1609: Clemens, D. P. 1985, \apj, 295, 422
1610:
1611: %\bibitem[Clemens \& Barvainis(1988)]{clemens88}
1612: %Clemens, D. P. \& Barvainis, R. 1988, \apjs, 68, 257
1613:
1614: %\bibitem[Clark et al. (2003)]{clark03}
1615: %Clark, J. S., Egan M. P., Crowther P. A., Mizuno D. R., Larionov V. M., \&
1616: %Arkharov A. 2003, \aap, 412, 185
1617:
1618: %\bibitem[Combes (1991)]{combes91}
1619: %Combes, F. 1991, \araa, 29, 195
1620:
1621: %\bibitem[Condon et al. (1998)]{condon98}
1622: %Condon, J. J., Cotton, W. D., Greisen, E. W., Yin, Q. F., Perley, R. A.,
1623: %Taylor, G. B., \& Broderick, J. J. 1998, \aj, 115, 1693
1624:
1625: %\bibitem[Crowther \& Conti (2003)]{crowther03}
1626: %Crowther, P.A. \& Conti, P.S. 2003, \mnras, 343, 143
1627:
1628: \bibitem[Conti \& Crowther (2004)]{conti04}
1629: Conti, P. S. \& Crowther, P. A. 2004, \mnras, 355, 899
1630:
1631: %\bibitem[Dame, Hartmann \& Thaddeus (2001)] {dame01}
1632: %Dame, T. M., Hartmann, D., \& Thaddeus, P. 2001, \apj, 547, 792
1633:
1634: %%\bibitem[Dickel, Dickel \& Wilson (1978)] {dickel78}
1635: %%Dickel, J.R., Dickel, H.R., \& Wilson, W.J. 1978, \apj, 223, 840
1636:
1637: %%\bibitem[Dickey \& Lockman (1990)] {dickey90}
1638: %%Dickey, J.M., \& Lockman, F.J. 1990, \araa, 28, 215
1639:
1640: \bibitem[Downes et al. (1980)]{downes80}
1641: Downes, D., Wilson, T. L., Bieging, J., \& Wink, J. 1980, \aaps, 40, 379
1642:
1643: %\bibitem[Dyson \& Williams (1997)]{dyson97}
1644: %Dyson, J. E., \& Williams, D. A. 1997, The Physics of the Interstellar
1645: %Medium (2nd ed.; Bristol: Inst. Physics)
1646:
1647: %%\bibitem[Dupree (1974)] {dupree74}%%Dupree, A.K. 1974, \apj, 187,25
1648:
1649: %\bibitem[Falgarone \& Phillips (1996)]{falgorone96}
1650: %Falgarone E. \& Phillips, T.G. 1996, \apj, 472, 191
1651:
1652: \bibitem[Fich, Blitz \& Stark (1989)]{fich89}
1653: Fich, M., Blitz, L. \& Stark, A. A. 1989, \apj, 342, 272
1654:
1655: %\bibitem[Fich, Dahl, \& Treffers (1990)]{fich90}
1656: %Fich, L., Dahl, G., \& Treffers, R. 1990, \aj, 99, 622
1657:
1658: \bibitem[Fish et al. (2003)]{fish03}
1659: Fish, V. L., Reid, M. J., Wilner, D. J., \& Churchwell, E. 2003, \apj, 587,
1660: 701
1661:
1662: \bibitem[Flynn et al. (2004)]{flynn04}
1663: Flynn, E. S., Jackson, J. M., Simon, R., Shah, R. Y., Bania, T. M.
1664: \& Wolfire, M. 2004, ASP Conference Series, 317, 44
1665:
1666: %\bibitem[Fontani, Cesaroni, Caselli, \& Olmi (2002)]{fontani02}
1667: %Fontani, F., Cesaroni, R., Caselli, P., \& Olmi, L. 2002, \aap, 389, 603
1668:
1669: %%\bibitem[F\"urst et al. (1990)] {frrr90}
1670: %%F\"urst, E., Reich, W., Reich, P., \& Reif, K. 1990, \apjs, 85, 691-803
1671:
1672: %\bibitem[Gaensler, Gotthelf, \& Vasisht (1999)]{gaensler99}
1673: %Gaensler, B. M., Gotthelf, E. V., \& Vasisht, G. 1999, \apj,, 526, 37
1674:
1675: %%\bibitem[Genzel et al. (1988)] {ghjs88}
1676: %%Genzel, R., Harris, A.I., Jaffe, D.T., \& Stutzki, J. 1988, \apj, 332, 1049
1677:
1678: \bibitem[Gibson et al.(2000)]{gibson00}
1679: Gibson, S. J., Taylor, A. R., Higgs, L. A., \& Dewdney, P. E. 2000,
1680: \apj, 540, 851
1681:
1682: \bibitem[Gibson et al.(2005)]{gibson05}
1683: Gibson S. J., Taylor, A. R., Higgs, L. A, Brunt, C. M., \& Dewdney,
1684: P.E. 2005, \apj, 626, 195
1685:
1686: \bibitem[Giveon et al.(2005))]{giveon05}
1687: Giveon, U., Becker, R. H., Helfand, D. J., \& White, R. L. 2005, \aj, 130, 156
1688:
1689: %%\bibitem[Gordon \& Churchwell (1970)] {gordon70}
1690: %%Gordon, M.A., \& Churchwell, E.B. 1970, \aap, 9, 307
1691:
1692: %\bibitem[Green (2006)] {green06}
1693: %Green, D.A. 2006, A Catalog of Galactic Supernova Remnants (2006
1694: %April version), Mullard Radio Astronomy Observatory, Cavendish
1695: %Laboratory (Cambridge, United Kingdom)
1696:
1697: \bibitem[Goldsmith \& Li (2005)]{goldsmith05}
1698: Goldsmith, P. F. \& Li, D. 2005, 622, 938
1699:
1700: %\bibitem[G\'{o}mez (1995)]{gomez95}
1701: %G\'{o}mez, Y., Garay, G., \& Lizano, S. 1995, \apj, 453, 727
1702:
1703: %%\bibitem[Haynes, Caswell \& Simons (1978)] {haynes78}
1704: %%Haynes, R.F., Caswell, J.L., \& Simons, W.J. 1978, Aust. J. Phys.
1705: %%Atrophys. Suppl., 45, 1
1706:
1707: %\bibitem[Helfand et al. (2006)]{helfand06}
1708: %Helfand, D.J., Becker, R.H., White, R.L., Fallon, A., and Tuttle,
1709: %S. 2006, \aj, 131, 2525
1710:
1711: %\bibitem[Hofner, Wyrowski, Walmsley, \& Churchwell (2000)]{hofner00}
1712: %Hofner, P., Wyrowski, F., Walmsley, C. M., \& Churchwell, E. 2000, \apj, 536, 393
1713:
1714: %%\bibitem[Hollenbach \& Tielens (1999)] {ht99}
1715: %%Hollenbach,D.J., \& Tielens, A.G.G.M. 1999, Rev. Mod. Phys., 71, 1
1716:
1717: %\bibitem[Hollenbach \& Tielens (1997)] {hollenbach97}
1718: %Hollenbach, D. J., \& Tielens, A. G. G. M. 1997, \araa, 35, 179
1719:
1720: %%\bibitem[Howe et al (1991)] {howe91}
1721: %%Howe, J.E., Jaffe, D.T., Genzel, R., \& Stacey, G. 1991, \apj, 373, 158
1722:
1723: %% paper has 10 authors
1724: %%\bibitem[Huang et al. (1999)] {huang99}
1725: %%Huang, M., Bania, T.M., Bolatto, A. et al. 1999, \apj, 517, 282
1726:
1727: %\bibitem[Simon et al.(2001)]{2001ApJ...551..747S} Simon, R., Jackson, J.~M., Clemens, D.~P., Bania, T.~M., \& Heyer, M.~H.\ 2001, \apj, 551, 747
1728:
1729: \bibitem[Jackson et al. (2002)] {jackson02}
1730: Jackson, J. M., Bania, T. M., Simon, R., Kolpak, M., Clemens, D. P.
1731: \& Heyer, M. 2002, \apj, 566, 81
1732:
1733: \bibitem[Jackson et al. (2006)] {jackson06}
1734: Jackson, J. M., Rathborne, J. M., Shah, R. Y., Simon, R., Bania, T. M.,
1735: Clemens, D. P., Chambers, E. T., Johnson, A. M., Dormody, M. \& Lavoie, R.
1736: 2006, \apjs, 163, 145
1737:
1738: %\bibitem[Jaffe \& Wilson (1981)] {jaffe81}
1739: %Jaffe, D.T., \& Wilson, T.L. 1981, \apj, 246, 113
1740:
1741: %%\bibitem[Jenkins \& Tripp (2001)] {jt01}
1742: %%Jenkins, E.B., \& Tripp, T.M. 2001, \apjs, 137, 297
1743:
1744: %\bibitem[Langer \& Penzias (1990)]{langer90}
1745: %Langer, W.D. \& Penzias, A.A. 1990, \apj, 357, 477
1746:
1747: \bibitem[Li \& Goldsmith (2003)]{li03}
1748: Li, D., \& Goldsmith, P. F. 2003, \apj, 585, 823
1749:
1750: %%\bibitem[Keene et al. (1985)] {keene85}
1751: %%Keene, J., Blake, G.A., Phillips, T.G., Huggins, P.J., \& Beichman,
1752: %%C.A. 1985, \apj, 299. 967
1753:
1754: %%\bibitem[Keene et al. (1998)] {keene98}
1755: %%Keene, J., Schilke, P., Kooi, J., Lis, D.C., Mehringer, D.M., \&
1756: %%Phillips, T.G. 1998, \apjl, 494, L107
1757:
1758: %\bibitem[Kim \& Koo (2001)]{kim01}
1759: % Kim, K. \& Koo, B. 2001, \apj, 549, 979
1760:
1761: %\bibitem[Kim \& Koo (2003)]{kim03}
1762: %Kim, K. \& Koo, B. 2003, \apj, 596, 362
1763:
1764: \bibitem[Knapp (1974)]{knapp74}
1765: Knapp, G. R. 1974, \aj, 79, 527
1766:
1767: %\bibitem[Kolpak et al. (2002)]{kolpak02}
1768: %Kolpak, M.A., Jackson, J.M., Bania, T.M., \& Dickey, J.M. 2002, \apj, 578, 868
1769:
1770: \bibitem[Kolpak et al. (2003)]{kolpak03}
1771: Kolpak, M. A., Jackson, J. M., Bania, T. M., \& Clemens, D. P. 2003, \apj, 582, 756
1772:
1773: %\bibitem[Kramer et al. (1998)]{kramer98}
1774: %Kramer, C., Stutzki, J., R\"{o}hrig, R., \& Corneliussen, U. 1998, \aap, 329, 249
1775:
1776: \bibitem[Kuchar \& Bania (1993)]{kuchar93}
1777: Kuchar, T. A \& Bania, T. M. 1993, \apj, 414, 664
1778:
1779: \bibitem[Kuchar \& Bania (1994)]{kuchar94}
1780: Kuchar, T. A. \& Bania, T. M. 1994, \apj, 436, 117
1781:
1782: %\bibitem[Kurtz et al. (1994)] {kurtz94}
1783: %Kurtz, S., Churchwell, E., Wood, D.O.S. \& Myers, P. 1994, \apjs, 91, 659
1784:
1785: %%\bibitem[Kulesa et al. (2005)] {kulesa05}
1786: %%Kulesa, C.A., Hungerford, A.L., Walker, C.K., Zang, X., \& Lane, A.P.
1787: %%2005, \apj, 625, 194
1788:
1789: %%\bibitem[Kulkarni \& Heiles (1987)] {kh87}
1790: %%Kulkarni, S.R. \& Heiles, C. 1987, in Interstellar Processes, ed.
1791: %%Hollenbach, D.J., \& Thronson, A. (Reidel, Dordrecht), 87
1792:
1793: %\bibitem[Kwok, Volk, \& Bidelman (1997)]{kwok97}
1794: %Kwok, S., Volk, K., \& Bidelman W.P. \apjs, 1997, 112, 557
1795:
1796: %\bibitem[L\'{e}bron, Rodr\'{i}guez \& Lizano (2001)]{lebron01}
1797: %L\'{e}bron, M.E., Rodr\'{i}guez, L.F. \& Lizano, S. 2001, \apj, 560, 806
1798:
1799: %\bibitem[Lee et al. (2001)] {lee01}
1800: %Lee, Y., Stark, A. A., Kim, H., \& Moon, D. 2001, ApJS, 136, 137
1801:
1802: %%\bibitem[Lehner, Wakker \& Savage (2004)] {lws04}
1803: %%Lehner, N., Wakker, B.P., \& Savage, B.D. 2004, \apj, 615, 767
1804:
1805: \bibitem[Levinson \& Brown (1980)]{levinson80}
1806: Levinson, F. H. \& Brown, R. L. 1980, \apj, 242, 416
1807:
1808: \bibitem[Lockman (1989)] {lockman89}
1809: Lockman, F. J. 1989, \apjs, 71, 469
1810:
1811: \bibitem[Lockman, Pisano, \& Howard (1996)] {lockman96}
1812: Lockman, F. J, Pisano, D. J., \& Howard, G. J., \apj, 472, 173
1813:
1814: %\bibitem[Leahy \& Tian (2008)]{leahy08}
1815: %Leahy, D. A. \& Tian, W. W. \apj, 135, 167
1816:
1817: \bibitem[Liszt, Burton \& Bania (1981)]{liszt81}
1818: Liszt, H. S., Burton, W. B., \& Bania, T. M. 1981, \apj, 246, 74
1819:
1820: %\bibitem[Milam et al. (2005)]{milam05}
1821: %Milam, S.N., Savage, C., Brewster, M.A., \& Ziurys, L.M. 2005, \apj, 634, 1126
1822:
1823: \bibitem[McClure-Griffiths et al. (2005)]{mcclure05}
1824: McClure-Griffiths, N.M., Dickey, J.M., Gaensler, B.M., Green, A.J.,
1825: Haverkorn, M., Strasser, S. 2005, \apjs, 158, 178
1826:
1827: \bibitem[McClure-Griffiths \& Dickey (2007)]{mcclure07}
1828: McClure-Griffiths, N. M. \& Dickey, J. 2007, \apj, 671, 427
1829:
1830: %%\bibitem[Natta, Walmsley \& Tielens (1994)] {nwt94}
1831: %%Natta, A., Walmsley, C.M., \& Tielens, A.G.G.M. 1994, \apj, 428, 209
1832:
1833: %\bibitem[Olmi, Cesaroni, \& Walmsley (1993)]{olmi93}
1834: %Olmi, L., Cesaroni, R., \& Walmsley, C. M. 1993, \aap, 276, 489
1835:
1836: %\bibitem[Paladini et al. (2003)] {paladini03}
1837: %Paladini R., Burigana C., Davies R. D., Maino D., Bersanelli M.,
1838: %Cappellini B., Platania P., \& Smoot G. 2003, \aap, 397, 213
1839:
1840: \bibitem[Paladini, Davies, \& Dezotti (2004)]{paladini04}
1841: Paladini, R., Davies, R. D., \& DeZotti, G. 2004, 347, 237
1842:
1843: %%\bibitem[Papadopoulos, Thi \& Viti (2004)] {ptv04}
1844: %%Papadopoulos, P.P, Thi, W.-F., \& Viti,S. 2004, \mnras, 351, 147
1845:
1846: \bibitem[Payne, Salpeter \& Terzian (1980)]{payne80}
1847: Payne, H. E., Salpeter, E. E. \& Terzian, Y. 1980, \apj, 240, 499
1848:
1849: %\bibitem[Peimbert et al. (1992)] {Peimbertandus}
1850: %Peimbert, M., Rodr{\'\i}guez, L.F., Bania, T.M., Rood, R.T., \& Wilson,
1851: %T.L. 1992, \apj, 395, 484
1852:
1853: \bibitem[Peters \& Bash (1983)]{peters83}
1854: Peters, W. L. \& Bash, F. N. 1983, Proc. Astr. Soc. Australia, 5, 224
1855:
1856: \bibitem[Peters \& Bash (1987)]{peters87}
1857: Peters, W. L. \& Bash, F. N. 1987, \apj, 317, 646
1858:
1859: %%\bibitem[Phillips \& Huggins (1981)] {ph81}
1860: %%Phillips, T.G., \& Huggins,P.J. 1981, \apj, 251, 533
1861:
1862: %%\bibitem[Reich et al. (1990)] {rfrr90}
1863: %%Reich, W., F\"urst, E., Reich, P., \& Reif,K. 1990, \apjs, 85, 633
1864:
1865: \bibitem[Reed (2006)]{reed06}
1866: Reed, B. C. 2006, J. R. Astron. Soc. Canada, 100, 146
1867:
1868: %%\bibitem[Rickard, Zuckerman \& Palmer (1977)] {}
1869: %%Rickard, L.J., Zuckerman, B., \& Palmer,P. 1977, \apj, 218, 659
1870:
1871: %\bibitem[Rohlfs \& Wilson (1996)] {rohlfs}
1872: %Rohlfs, K. \& Wilson, T.L., Tools of Raidio Astronomy, Springer, Heidelberg??
1873:
1874: %%\bibitem[Rood, Bania \& Wilson (1984)] {rbw84}
1875: %%Rood, R.T., Bania, T.M., \& Wilson, T.L. 1984, \apj, 280, 629
1876:
1877: %\bibitem[Roshi et al. (2005)] {roshi05}
1878: %Roshi, D.A., Balser, D.S., Bania, T.M., Goss, W.M., \& De Pree, C.G. 2005, \apj, 625, 181
1879:
1880: %%\bibitem[Russell (1980)] {russell80}
1881: %%Russell, R.W., Melnick, G., Gull, G.E., \& Harwit,M. 1980, \apjl, 240, L99
1882:
1883: \bibitem[Russeil \& Castets (2004)]{russeil04}
1884: Russeil, D. \& Castets, A. 2004, \aap, 417, 107
1885:
1886: %\bibitem[Sanders et al. (1986)] {sanders86}
1887: %Sanders, D.B., Clemens, D.P., Scoville, N.Z., \& Solomon, P.M.
1888: %1986, ApJS, 60, 1
1889:
1890: %\bibitem[Scoville \& Solomon (1975)] {scoville75}
1891: %Scoville, N. Z. \& Solomon, P. M. 1975, \apjl, 199, L105
1892:
1893: %%\bibitem[Shah (1995)] {shah95}
1894: %%Shah, R.Y. 1995, Senior Thesis, Boston University: ``Pressure Constraints
1895: %%on Photodissociation Region Models via Carbon Radio Recombination Lines''
1896:
1897: %%\bibitem[Shaver et al. (1983)] {shaver83}
1898: %%Shaver, P.A., McGee, R.X., Newton, L.M., Danks, A.C., \& Pottasch,
1899: %%S.R. 1983, \mnras, 204, 53
1900:
1901: \bibitem[Simon et al. (2001)]{simon01}
1902: Simon, R., Jackson, J. M., Clemens, D. P., \& Bania, T. M. 2001, \apj, 551, 747
1903:
1904: %%\bibitem[Simon et al. (2005), submitted] {simon05}
1905: %%Simon, R., Rathborne, J.M., Shah, R.Y., Jackson, J.M., \& Chambers,
1906: %%E.T. 2005, submitted
1907:
1908: \bibitem[Sewilo, et al. (2004)]{sewilo04}
1909: Sewilo, M., Churchwell, E., Kurtz, S., Goss, W. M., Hofner, P. 2004, \apj, 605, 285
1910:
1911: %%\bibitem[Sorochenko \& Tsivilev (2000)] {st00}
1912: %%Sorochenko, R.L. \& Tsivilev, A.P. 2000, Astron. Rep., 44, 7, 426
1913:
1914: %%\bibitem[Stacey et al. (1993)] {stacey93}
1915: %%Stacey, G.J., Jaffe, D.T., Geis, N., Genzel, R., Harris, A.I.,
1916: %%Poglitsch, A., Stutzki, J., \& Townes, C.H. 1993, \apj, 404, 219
1917:
1918: \bibitem[Stark \& Brand (1989)]{stark89}
1919: Stark, A. A. \& Brand, J. 1989, \apj, 339, 763
1920:
1921: %\bibitem[Stephenson (1992)]{stephenson92}
1922: %Stephenson, C.B. 1992, \aj, 103, 263
1923:
1924: %%\bibitem[] {}
1925: %%St\"orzer H., Stutzki J. \& Sternberg A. 1997, \aap, 323, L13
1926:
1927: \bibitem[Stil et al. (2006)]{stil06}
1928: Stil, J. M., et al. 2006, \aj, 132, 1158
1929:
1930: %%\bibitem[Sullivan \& Downes (1973)] {sd73}
1931: %%Sullivan, W.T. \& Downes, D. 1973, \aap, 29, 369
1932:
1933: %\bibitem[Tieftrunk, Gaume, \& Wilson (1998)] {tieftrunk98}
1934: %Tieftrunk, A.R., Gaume, R.A, \& Wilson, T.L. 1998, \aap, 340, 232
1935:
1936: %%\bibitem[Viala et al. (1988)] {viala88}
1937: %%Viala, Y.P., Letzelter, C., Eidelsberg, M., \& Rostas, F. 1988, \aap,
1938: %%193, 265
1939:
1940: %\bibitem[Tian, Leahy \& Wang (2007)]{tian07}
1941: %Tian, W. W., Leahy, D. A. \& Wang, Q. D. 2007, \aj, 474, 541
1942:
1943: \bibitem[Wannier et al. (1991)] {wannier91}
1944: Wannier, P. G., Lichten, S. M., Andersson, B. G., \& Morris, M. 1991,
1945: \apjs, 75, 987
1946:
1947: \bibitem[Watson et al. (2003)] {watson03}
1948: Watson, C., Araya, E., Sewilo, M., Churchwell, E., Hofner, P., \& Kurtz,
1949: S. 2003, \apj, 587, 714
1950:
1951: %\bibitem[Whiteoak, Otrupcek, \& Rennie (1982)]{whiteoak82}
1952: %Whiteoak, J. B., Otrupcek, R. E., \& Rennie, C. J. 1982, PASAu, 4, 434
1953:
1954: %\bibitem[Williams, de Geus, \& Blitz (1994)]{williams94}
1955: %Williams, J.P., de Geus, E. J., \& Blitz, L. 1994, \apj, 428, 693
1956:
1957: \bibitem[Williams \& Maddalena (1996)]{williams96}
1958: Williams, J. P. \& Maddelena, R. J. 1996, \apj, 464, 247
1959:
1960: \bibitem[Wilson (1972)]{wilson72}
1961: Wilson, T. L. 1972, \aap, 19, 354
1962:
1963: %%\bibitem[Wilson, Tomasson \& Gardner (1975)] {wilson75}
1964: %%Wilson, T.L., Tomasson, P., \& Gardner, F.F. 1975, \aap, 73, 167
1965:
1966: \bibitem[Wink, Altenhoff \& Mezger (1982)]{wink82}
1967: Wink, J. E., Altenhoff, W. J., \& Mezger, P. G. 1982, \aap, 108, 227
1968:
1969: %%\bibitem[Wolfire et al. (2003)] {wolfire03}
1970: %%Wolfire, M.G., McKee, C.F., Hollenbach, D., \& Tielens, A.G.G.M. 2003,
1971: %%\apj, 587, 278
1972:
1973: %\bibitem[Wood \& Churchwell (1989a)] {wc89a}
1974: %Wood, D.O.S. \& Churchwell, E. 1989, \apj, 69, 831
1975:
1976: %\bibitem[Wood \& Churchwell (1989b)] {wc89b}
1977: %Wood, D.O.S. \& Churchwell, E. 1989, \apj, 340, 265
1978:
1979: \end{thebibliography}
1980:
1981: \clearpage
1982:
1983: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1984: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1985: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccccc}
1986: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1987: \tablecaption{\hii\ Region Kinematic Parameters}
1988: \tablewidth{0pt}
1989: \tablehead{
1990:
1991: \colhead{Source} &
1992: \colhead{l} &
1993: \colhead{b} &
1994: \colhead{$V_{\rm LSR}$} &
1995: \colhead{$R_{\rm GC}$} &
1996: \colhead{$D_{\rm near}$} &
1997: \colhead{$D_{\rm far}$} &
1998: \colhead{$D_{\rm TP}$} \\
1999:
2000: \colhead{} &
2001: \colhead{($\arcdeg$)} &
2002: \colhead{($\arcdeg$)} &
2003: \colhead{($\kms$)} &
2004: \colhead{(kpc)} &
2005: \colhead{(kpc)} &
2006: \colhead{(kpc)} &
2007: \colhead{(kpc)} \\
2008: }
2009:
2010: \startdata
2011:
2012: U23.87$-$0.12 & 23.87 & $-$0.12 & \phn 73.8 & 4.6 & 4.7 & 10.8 & 7.8 \\
2013: C23.91+0.07a & 23.91 & $+$0.07 & \phn 32.8 & 6.4 & 2.4 & 13.1 & 7.8 \\
2014: C23.91+0.07b & 23.91 & $+$0.07 & 103.4 & 3.8 & 6.1 & \phn 9.4 & 7.8 \\
2015: U23.96+0.15 & 23.96 & $+$0.15 & \phn 78.9 & 4.4 & 5.0 & 10.6 & 7.8 \\
2016: C24.00$-$0.10 & 24.00 & $-$0.10 & \phn 75.8 & 4.5 & 4.8 & 10.7 & 7.8 \\
2017: C24.13$-$0.07 & 24.13 & $-$0.07 & \phn 86.9 & 4.2 & 5.3 & 10.2 & 7.8 \\
2018: C24.14+0.12 & 24.14 & $+$0.12 & 114.5 & 3.6 & 6.8 & \phn 8.7 & 7.8 \\
2019: D24.14+0.43 & 24.14 & $+$0.43 & \phn 98.4 & 4.0 & 5.9 & \phn 9.6 & 7.8 \\
2020: C24.19+0.20 & 24.19 & $+$0.20 & 111.9 & 3.7 & 6.6 & \phn 8.9 & 7.8 \\
2021: C24.22$-$0.05 & 24.22 & $-$0.05 & \phn 82.0 & 4.4 & 5.1 & 10.4 & 7.8 \\
2022:
2023: %\input{table1.txt}
2024:
2025: \enddata
2026: \label{tab:1}
2027: \tablecomments{Table 1 is published in its entirety in the electronic edition of the {\it Astrophysical Journal}.
2028: A portion is shown here for guidance regarding its form and content.}
2029: \end{deluxetable}
2030:
2031:
2032: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccccccc}
2033: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
2034: \tablecaption{\hii\ Region Kinematic Distances}
2035: \tablewidth{0pt}
2036: \tablehead{
2037:
2038: \colhead{} &
2039: \multicolumn{4}{c}{\hiea} &
2040: \colhead{} &
2041: \multicolumn{2}{c}{\hisa} &
2042: \colhead{} &
2043: \colhead{} \\ \cline{2-5} \cline{7-8}
2044:
2045: \colhead{Source} &
2046: \colhead{$V_{\rm max}$} &
2047: \colhead{Abs?} &
2048: \colhead{N/F} &
2049: \colhead{CEA} &
2050: \colhead{} &
2051: \colhead{N/F} &
2052: \colhead{CSA} &
2053: \colhead{$D_{\sun}$} &
2054: \colhead{$z$} \\
2055:
2056: \colhead{} &
2057: \colhead{($\kms$)} &
2058: \colhead{} &
2059: \colhead{} &
2060: \colhead{} &
2061: \colhead{} &
2062: \colhead{} &
2063: \colhead{} &
2064: \colhead{(kpc)} &
2065: \colhead{(pc)} \\
2066: }
2067:
2068: \startdata
2069:
2070: U23.87$-$0.12 & 100 & Y & F\phantom{*} & A & & F\phantom{*} & A & 10.8 & \phn $-22.6$ \\
2071: C23.91+0.07a & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata\phantom{*} & \nodata & & F\phantom{*} & B & 13.1 & \phn \phs 16.1 \\
2072: C23.91+0.07b & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata\phantom{*} & \nodata & & F\phantom{*} & B & \phn 9.4 & \phn \phs 11.5 \\
2073: U23.96+0.15 & \phn 82 & Y & N* & A & & F\phantom{*} & B & \phn 5.0 & \phn \phs 13.0 \\
2074: C24.00$-$0.10 & 102 & Y & F\phantom{*} & A & & F\phantom{*} & A & 10.7 & \phn $-18.7$ \\
2075: C24.13$-$0.07 & 109 & Y & F\phantom{*} & A & & F\phantom{*} & A & 10.2 & \phn $-12.4$ \\
2076: C24.14+0.12 & \nodata & \nodata & T\phantom{*} & \nodata & & F\phantom{*} & A & \phn 8.7 & \phn \phs 18.3 \\
2077: D24.14+0.43 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata\phantom{*} & \nodata & & N\phantom{*} & A & \phn 5.9 & \phn \phs 44.1 \\
2078: C24.19+0.20 & \nodata & \nodata & T\phantom{*} & \nodata & & F\phantom{*} & A & \phn 8.9 & \phn \phs 31.1 \\
2079: C24.22$-$0.05 & 119 & Y & F\phantom{*} & A & & F\phantom{*} & B & 10.4 & \phn \phn $-9.1$ \\
2080:
2081: %\input{table2.txt}
2082:
2083: \enddata
2084: \label{tab:2}
2085: \tablecomments{Table 2 is published in its entirety in the electronic edition of the {\it Astrophysical Journal}.
2086: A portion is shown here for guidance regarding its form and content.}
2087:
2088: \end{deluxetable}
2089:
2090: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2091: \begin{deluxetable}{lccl}
2092: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
2093: \tablecaption{Distance Discrepancies}
2094: \tablewidth{0pt}
2095: \tablehead{
2096:
2097: \colhead{Source} &
2098: \colhead{This Work} &
2099: \colhead{Past Work} &
2100: \colhead{Reference} \\
2101: }
2102:
2103: \startdata
2104:
2105: \input{table3.txt}
2106:
2107: \enddata
2108:
2109: \tablenotetext{1}{\citet{downes80}}
2110: \tablenotetext{2}{\citet{wink82}}
2111: \tablenotetext{3}{\citet{araya02}}
2112: \tablenotetext{4}{\citet{watson03}}
2113: \tablenotetext{5}{\citet{sewilo04}}
2114: \tablenotetext{6}{\citet{kuchar94}}
2115: \tablenotetext{7}{\citet{kolpak03}}
2116: \tablenotetext{8}{\citet{fish03}}
2117:
2118: \label{tab:3}
2119: \end{deluxetable}
2120: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2121:
2122: \clearpage
2123:
2124: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2125: \begin{figure}
2126: \plotone{f1.eps}
2127:
2128: \caption{The inner Galaxy Kinematic Distance Ambiguity. Shown is the
2129: LSR velocity plotted as a function of distance from the Sun for the line
2130: of sight toward the \hii\ region G18.15$-$0.28, which has an observed
2131: radio recombination line (RRL) velocity of +53.9\kms\ \citet{lockman89}. Three different
2132: models for Galactic rotation, \citet[][dotted]{clemens85},
2133: \citet[][dashed]{brand86}, and \citet[][solid]{mcclure07}, give
2134: identical distances for both the near and far kinematic distances.
2135: G18.15$-$0.28 must be located at the 4.2 kpc near distance because \hi\
2136: absorption is not seen at velocities between the RRL and the tangent
2137: point terminal velocity of +139.4\kms\ (see \S \ref{sec:hiea_protocol}).}
2138:
2139: \label{fig:velcurve}
2140: \end{figure}
2141:
2142: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2143: \begin{figure}
2144: \plotone{f2.eps}
2145:
2146: \caption{Example \hiea\ analysis for four \hii\ regions. The top panel
2147: of each plot shows the on-- (solid line) and off-- (dotted line) source
2148: average \hi\ spectra. The bottom panel of each plot shows the
2149: difference between the off-- and on--source spectra (solid line) and our
2150: error estimates (dotted lines). The three solid vertical lines mark the
2151: RRL velocity and $\pm$10 \kms\ of the RRL velocity, and the dashed
2152: vertical line marks the tangent point velocity. Sources at the far
2153: distance will show absorption between the RRL velocity and the tangent
2154: point velocity. Sources at the near distance will show absorption only
2155: up to the RRL velocity. Top row: example near (left) and far (right)
2156: sources which we assign with high confidence (confidence parameter = A).
2157: Bottom row: example near (left) and far (right) sources which we assign
2158: with low confidence (confidence parameter = B).}
2159:
2160: \label{fig:hiea}
2161: \end{figure}
2162:
2163: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2164: \begin{figure}
2165: \plotone{f3.eps}
2166:
2167: \caption{Single channel VGPS images for the Figure \ref{fig:hiea} \hii\
2168: regions showing the \hi\ intensity at the highest velocity with detected
2169: absorption. The contours are of 21cm VGPS continuum. Tick marks on the
2170: contours point towards decreasing values of 21cm continuum intensity.
2171: Top row: example near (left) and far (right) sources which we assign
2172: with high confidence (confidence parameter = A). Bottom row: example
2173: near (left) and far (right) sources which we assign with low confidence
2174: (confidence parameter = B).}
2175:
2176: \label{fig:hiea_images}
2177: \end{figure}
2178:
2179: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2180: \begin{figure}
2181: \plotone{f4.eps}
2182:
2183: \caption{Example \hisa\ analysis for four \hii\ regions. The spectrum
2184: shown in gray is \hi\ while the spectrum shown in black is \cor. The
2185: solid vertical line marks the velocity of the \cor\ associated with the
2186: \hii\ region found in Paper I, and the dashed vertical line marks the
2187: tangent point velocity. Sources at the near distance show \hi\
2188: absorption at the velocity of \cor\ emission. Sources at the far
2189: distances show no \hi\ absorption at the velocity of \cor\ emission.
2190: Top row: example near (left) and far (right) sources which we assign
2191: with high confidence (confidence parameter = A). Bottom row: example
2192: near (left) and far (right) sources which we assign with low confidence
2193: (confidence parameter = B).}
2194:
2195: \label{fig:hisa}
2196: \end{figure}
2197:
2198: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2199: \begin{figure}
2200: \plotone{f5.eps}
2201:
2202: \caption{Single channel VGPS images for the Figure \ref{fig:hisa} \hii\
2203: regions at the velocity of peak \cor\ intensity used in the \hisa\
2204: analysis. The contours are of integrated \cor\ intensity, $W_{\rm
2205: 13CO}$. Tick marks on the contours point towards decreasing values of
2206: $W_{\rm 13CO}$. Top row: example near (left) and far (right) sources
2207: which we assign with high confidence (confidence parameter = A). Bottom
2208: row: example near (left) and far (right) sources which we assign with
2209: low confidence (confidence parameter = B). The two top images and bottom
2210: right image show strong absorption from the \hii\ region radio continuum
2211: at image center; these positions with strong radio continuum emission
2212: were not used in the \hisa\ analysis.}
2213:
2214: \label{fig:hisa_images}
2215: \end{figure}
2216:
2217: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2218: \begin{figure}
2219: \plotone{f6.eps}
2220:
2221: \caption{Example \hisa\ analysis for four \hii\ regions whose KDA cannot
2222: be resolved using the \hiea\ method. The plot formats are those of
2223: Figure \ref{fig:hisa}. In the top row, the source velocities are very
2224: near the tangent point velocities, and yet the \hisa\ analysis is able
2225: to resolve the KDA; the top left source is at the near distance while
2226: the top right source is at the far distance. In the bottom row, two
2227: \hii\ regions are located along the same line of sight, but the \hisa\
2228: analysis is able to resolve the KDA for both sources.; C28.31$-$0.02a is
2229: at the far distance while C28.31$-$0.02b is at the near distance.}
2230:
2231: \label{fig:problems}
2232: \end{figure}
2233:
2234: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2235: \begin{figure}
2236: \plotone{f7.eps}
2237:
2238: \caption{The ratio of far to near sources plotted as a function
2239: of the average \hii\ region integrated intensity, $W_{\rm 13CO}$. The
2240: solid line shows this relationship for a sample of \hii\ region/\cor\
2241: cloud complexes defined by 75\% of the peak \cor\ value. The
2242: dashed line shows the relationship defined by 85\% of the peak \cor\
2243: value.}
2244:
2245: \label{fig:wco_vs_nf}
2246: \end{figure}
2247:
2248: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2249: \begin{figure}
2250:
2251: \plotone{f8.eps}
2252:
2253: \caption{Galactic Distribution of \hii\ regions. The straight lines
2254: show the longitude range of our sample, $15\arcdeg-56 \arcdeg$. The
2255: half-circle indicates the tangent point distance, and is the locus of
2256: subcentral points. The left panel plots shows the positions for all
2257: regions with KDA resolved distances. In the right panel, these
2258: positions are binned into $0.25 \times 0.25$ \kpc\ pixels, and the
2259: resultant image smoothed with a $5 \times 5$ pixel Gaussian
2260: filter.}
2261:
2262: \label{fig:faceon}
2263: \end{figure}
2264:
2265: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2266: \begin{figure}
2267:
2268: \plotone{f9.eps}
2269:
2270: \caption{Distribution of Galactocentric radii for our \hii\ region
2271: sample. The distribution is shown using 0.25 kpc bins. The peaks at
2272: 4.5 and 6 kpc in this distribution correspond to the radii of the
2273: circular arc features seen in Figure \ref{fig:faceon}.}
2274:
2275: \label{fig:rgal}
2276: \end{figure}
2277:
2278: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2279:
2280: %\begin{figure}
2281:
2282: %\includegraphics[scale = 0.8]{/home/andersld/idl/distances/fake_face_on_twoplot.ps}
2283:
2284: %\caption{Randomized distribution of distances. Plots are the same as
2285: % those shown in Figure \ref{fig:faceon}}
2286:
2287: %\label{fig:fake_faceon}
2288: %\end{figure}
2289:
2290: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2291:
2292:
2293: %\begin{figure}
2294:
2295: %\includegraphics[scale = 0.8]{/home/andersld/idl/distances/distance_co.ps}
2296:
2297: %\caption{Distribution of \hii\ region distances, binned by 0.5 kpc.}
2298:
2299: %\label{fig:distance}
2300: %\end{figure}
2301:
2302: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2303: %\begin{figure}
2304:
2305: %\includegraphics[scale = 0.8]{/home/andersld/idl/distances/z_distance.ps}
2306:
2307: %\caption{The distribution of height above the plane for the sources with
2308: % resolved distance ambiguities. }
2309:
2310: %\label{fig:z}
2311: %\end{figure}
2312:
2313: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2314: \begin{figure}
2315:
2316: \plotone{f10.eps}
2317:
2318: \caption{Distribution of height above the plane for the sources with
2319: resolved distance ambiguities. Ultra compact sources are shown open, compact
2320: sources are shown hatched, and diffuse sources are shown in gray. The
2321: top left panel is the stacked histogram of all three categories of \hii\
2322: regions such that the outer line shows the entire distribution. The
2323: other three panels show the distribution for the three categories of
2324: \hii\ regions.}
2325:
2326: \label{fig:height}
2327: \end{figure}
2328:
2329:
2330: \end{document}
2331: