1: %\documentclass[aaspp4]{aastex}
2: %\documentclass[preprint]{aastex}
3: %\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
4: \documentclass{aastex}
5:
6: \usepackage[onecolumn]{emulateapj5}
7: \usepackage{epsf}
8:
9: \newcommand{\dm}{DIRTY\,\,}
10:
11: \begin{document}
12:
13: \title{The DIRTY Model II: Self-Consistent Treatment of Dust Heating
14: and Emission in a 3-D Radiative Transfer Code}
15:
16: \author{
17: K. A. Misselt\altaffilmark{1,2,3}, Karl D. Gordon\altaffilmark{4},
18: Geoffrey C. Clayton\altaffilmark{1}, \& M. J. Wolff\altaffilmark{5}
19: }
20:
21: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Physics \& Astronomy, Louisiana State University, Baton
22: Rouge, LA, 70803-4001}
23: \altaffiltext{2}{present address: NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center,
24: Code 685, Greenbelt, MD 20771}
25: \altaffiltext{3}{National Research Council/Resident Research Associate}
26: \altaffiltext{4}{Steward Observatory, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721}
27: \altaffiltext{5}{Space Science Institute, 3100 Marine St., Suite A353, Boulder, CO
28: 80303-1058}
29:
30:
31: \begin{abstract}
32: In this paper and a companion paper we present the \dm model, a Monte Carlo radiative
33: transfer code, self-consistently including dust heating and emission, and accounting for
34: the effects of the transient heating of small grains. The code is completely general;
35: the density structure of the dust, the number and type of heating sources, and their
36: geometric configurations can be specified arbitrarily within the model space. Source
37: photons are tracked through the scattering and absorbing medium using Monte Carlo
38: techniques and the effects of multiple scattering are included. The dust scattering,
39: absorbing, and emitting properties are calculated from realistic dust models derived by
40: fitting observed extinction curves in Local Group galaxies including the Magellanic
41: Clouds and the Milky Way. The dust temperature and the emitted dust spectrum are
42: calculated self consistently from the absorbed energy including the effects of
43: temperature fluctuations in small grains. Dust self-absorption is also accounted for,
44: allowing the treatment of high optical depths, by treating photons emitted by the dust
45: as an additional heating source and adopting an iterative radiative transfer scheme. As
46: an illustrative case, we apply the \dm radiative transfer code to starburst galaxies
47: wherein the heating sources are derived from stellar evolutionary synthesis models.
48: Within the context of the starburst model, we examine the dependence of the ultraviolet
49: to far-infrared spectral energy distribution, dust temperatures, and dust masses
50: predicted by \dm on variations of the input parameters.
51: \end{abstract}
52:
53: \section{Introduction}
54: \label{sec:intro}
55: Over the past two decades, studies of galaxies have become increasingly more quantitative
56: as powerful new instruments sensitive from the far-ultraviolet (UV) to the infrared (IR)
57: have become available. With these observations, it has become clear that the presence of
58: dust has a significant effect on the observed properties of galaxies; the observed
59: spectral energy distribution (SED) is a complex convolution of the intrinsic SED of the
60: stellar populations with the physical properties of the absorbing and scattering medium
61: (dust), including its composition as well as its geometric relation to the stellar
62: sources. In addition to complicating the interpretation of observations of galaxies, dust
63: is also an essential component in determining and modifying the physical conditions in the
64: interstellar medium (ISM) of galaxies, regulating star formation, and participating in the
65: chemical evolution of the galaxy. The effects of dust are particularly pronounced in
66: galaxies undergoing active star formation, e.g., starburst galaxies. A substantial
67: fraction of nearby galaxies ($\sim$30\%; Salzer et al. 1995) is made up of active star
68: forming galaxies and nearly all galaxies at high redshift display characteristics typical
69: of local star forming galaxies \citep{hetal98}. Therefore, the ability to quantify the
70: effects of dust in interpreting galaxy observations has implications not only for the
71: study of starburst galaxies themselves, but also the formation and evolution of galaxies
72: over the age of the universe.
73:
74: Quantifying the effects of dust in any astrophysical system is complicated by the
75: geometric relationship between the illumination source(s) and the dust, uncertainty in the
76: dust composition, and the structure of the scattering and absorbing medium. These effects
77: are especially pronounced in galaxies, where a typical observing aperture may include
78: multiple, complex regions comprised of stars, gas, and dust mixed together in complicated
79: geometries and widely varying environments. Differences in stellar populations,
80: metallicities, dust properties, and geometry can produce similar effects on observed
81: properties of galaxies. Disentangling the effects of these various intrinsic galactic
82: properties requires the use of realistic models of the transfer of radiation including
83: both stars and dust. Historically, the treatment of dust in radiative transfer
84: simulations has been necessarily simplistic. In many cases, the dust distribution is
85: assumed to take the form of a foreground screen in analogy with stellar extinction
86: studies. However, the extension of this simple geometry to more complicated systems
87: like galaxies can lead to severely erroneous results regarding the amount of dust present
88: and its effects on the observed SED (e.g., Witt, Thronson \& Capuano 1992 and references
89: therein). Observationally, the interstellar medium in the Milky Way and external galaxies
90: possesses structure over a range of spatial scales, characterized by variations in density
91: over several orders of magnitude. Finally, the physical characteristics of the dust
92: grains determine how the grains absorb, scatter, and re-emit stellar photons. Many models
93: of the transfer of radiation through dusty media in galaxies have appeared in the
94: literature
95: %\citep{wtc92,err95,mh98,sgbd98,vd99,fbcg99,tav99,whs99},
96: %(Witt,
97: %Thronson \& Capuano 1992; Manske \& Henning 1998; Silva et. al. 1998; Variosi \& Dwek
98: %1998; Ferrara et. al. 1999; Takagi, Arimoto \& Vansevi$\check{c}$ius 1999; Wolff \& Henning
99: %1999)
100: and although they have included all of these factors to some degree, owing to the
101: complexity of the problem, none treat them all simultaneously. Some are restricted to
102: geometries that exhibit global symmetries \citep{err95,mh98,sgbd98,vd99,tav99}, while
103: others assume constant or continuously varying, homogeneous dust distributions
104: \citep{wtc92,err95,mh98,sgbd98,tav99} or do not fully treat the re-emission from grains in
105: the infrared \citep{wtc92,err95,tav99,whs99}.
106:
107: One of the seminal works in establishing the importance of geometry in radiative transfer
108: models of galaxies is that of \citet{wtc92}. Subsequent work established the importance
109: of local structure, i.e. clumpiness, in modeling the transport of radiation in dusty
110: media \citep{wg96,wg00}. The models developed by these authors employ Monte Carlo
111: techniques to solve the radiative transfer equations through inhomogeneous dusty media
112: with arbitrary geometries. The models are quite general, including the effects of multiple
113: scattering and non--isotropic scattering functions. The use of Monte Carlo techniques in
114: the radiative transfer problem allows the treatment of arbitrary 3-dimensional geometries
115: with no symmetries and can easily include a non--homogeneous, clumpy structure for the
116: scattering and absorbing medium. However, the models do not include the effects of dust
117: heating and re-emission. In this paper and a companion paper \citep{gmwc00}, we present
118: the \dm model which incorporates the strengths of the previous models and extends them to
119: include dust heating and re--emission in the IR. The importance of the IR in understanding
120: galaxies can be readily seen by considering the absorption, scattering, and emission
121: properties of dust. The absorption, scattering, and re-emission of photons by dust grains
122: occur in different wavelength regimes. Dust is very efficient at absorbing and scattering
123: UV/optical photons. The energy absorbed by the dust is thermalized and re--emitted at IR
124: wavelengths. As a result, a large fraction (approaching 100\% for heavily enshrouded
125: regions) of a galaxy's UV/Optical energy may be reprocessed and re--emitted by the dust at
126: IR wavelengths. Thus studies of galaxies that consider only the UV/optical wavelengths can
127: neglect a large fraction of the galaxies' energy budgets. A successful model of the
128: transfer and emission of radiation in a galaxy must consistently reproduce the observed
129: SED of the galaxy from the UV to the far infrared (FIR) simultaneously.
130:
131: Reprocessing of UV/optical photons into IR photons occurs through two basic mechanisms
132: depending both on the radiation field they are exposed to and the radius, $a$, of the dust
133: grain. Large dust grains reach thermal equilibrium and emit as modified blackbodies with
134: an equilibrium temperature, $T_{eq}$. However, small grains (and also large molecules e.g.,
135: polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons or PAH) have small heat capacities and the absorption of
136: even a single UV/optical photon can substantially heat the grain. These small grains will
137: not reach an equilibrium temperature but will instead undergo temperature fluctuations
138: that lead to grain emission at temperatures well in excess of $T_{eq}$. The inclusion of
139: small, thermally fluctuating grains in dust models is necessary to explain the excess of
140: near and mid-IR emission observed in a variety of systems, including galaxies (e.g.,
141: Sellgren 1984; Helou 1986; Boulanger \& P\'{e}rault 1988; Sauvage, Thuan \& Vigroux 1990).
142: In addition, the observation of prominent emission lines widely ascribed to PAH molecules
143: in the spectra of galaxies (e.g., Acosta-Pulido et al.\ 1996), indicates that a
144: realistic dust model should include such a component. While many authors have elucidated
145: methods of calculating the emission from small, thermally fluctuating grains (e.g. Draine
146: \& Andersen 1985; Dwek 1986; Leger, d'Hendecourt \& D\'{e}fourneau 1989; Guhathakurta \&
147: Draine 1989), their inclusion in radiative transfer calculations has been limited. Our
148: extension of the \dm model includes large grains, small grains ($a > 100$~\AA\ and $a \le
149: 100$~\AA, respectively; see \S\ref{sec:trans}), and PAH molecules and we treat the heating
150: and re-emission by each component in the appropriate regime.
151:
152: In this paper, we present our model, concentrating on the dust heating and emission.
153: Details of the Monte Carlo calculations are presented in a companion paper \citep{gmwc00}.
154: In \S\ref{sec:dust_model}, we discuss the details of our dust grain model; we review the
155: relevant equations for determining the dust emission spectrum, describe our computational
156: method, and discuss the details of the computation in \S\ref{sec:physics}; results of the
157: model calculations are presented in \S\ref{sec:application} in the context of
158: applications of \dm to starburst galaxies, including a discussion of the response of the
159: model SED to variations in the input parameters, e.g., the dust grain model, global and
160: local geometries, heating sources (age, star formation rate [SFR]), size, and optical
161: depth; we conclude with a summary and outline some future directions in
162: \S\ref{sec:conclusion}.
163:
164: \section{Dust Model}
165: \label{sec:dust_model}
166: In order to calculate the absorption and re--emission characteristics of a population of
167: dust grains, we must specify their composition, optical properties, and size distribution.
168: Our dust grain model consists of a mixture of carbonaceous (amorphous and graphitic
169: carbon) and silicate grains as well as PAH molecules. Although the exact composition of
170: interstellar dust is still a matter of debate and certainly varies in different
171: environments, we include these components in order to match several well observed
172: extinction and emission features in the interstellar medium of the Milky Way and other
173: galaxies. The presence of silicate grains is inferred from prominent stretching and
174: bending mode features at $\sim 9.7~\micron$ and $\sim 18.5~\micron$ in the mid--infrared.
175: These features are observed in H~II regions, near young as well as evolved stars, and in
176: the integrated spectra of external galaxies \citep{r91,dw97}. The well known 2175~\AA\
177: absorption feature, which is normally attributed to the presence of small carbonaceous
178: grains in the form of graphite (other possibilities for the carrier exist. See e.g. Draine
179: [1989], Duley \& Seahra [1999]), has been observed along lines of sight in our own galaxy
180: as well the Magellanic Clouds (Gordon \& Clayton 1998; Misselt, Clayton \& Gordon 1999)
181: and M~31 \citep{m31ext96}. The presence of narrow emission features in the mid--infrared
182: implies a third dust component. These features are associated with C--C (6.2 and
183: 7.7~\micron) and C--H (3.3, 8.6, and 11.3~\micron) bending and stretching modes in
184: aromatic molecular structures (L\'{e}ger \& D'Hendecourt 1988; Allamandola, Tielens \&
185: Barker 1989), and the source of these aromatic emission features is widely identified with
186: polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) molecules, though other assignments have been made
187: \citep{sw89}. The mid--infrared emission features have been observed in a wide
188: variety of astrophysical environments including external galaxies and so we include a PAH
189: component in our model.
190:
191: With the grain composition established for our modeling purposes, we need to specify the
192: absorption, scattering, and extinction cross sections, $\sigma_{abs,sca,ext}$ of the
193: grains as well as the their size distribution and abundances. For spherical grains,
194: $\sigma(a,\lambda)$ is specified in terms of the efficiencies, $Q(a,\lambda)$;
195:
196: \begin{equation}
197: \label{eq:cs_def}
198: \sigma(a,\lambda) = \pi a^{2} Q(a,\lambda),
199: \end{equation}
200:
201: \noindent
202: where $a$ is the radius of the grain. The optical scattering and absorption efficiencies
203: of the graphite, amorphous carbon (AMC), and silicate grain populations were derived from
204: Mie theory \citep{bh83} with the dielectric functions described in \citet{ld93}
205: (graphite), \citet{zmcb96} (AMC), and \citet{wd00} (silicate). The cross--sections for the
206: PAH molecules were derived from the analytic form presented in \citet{d97}. This analytic
207: form is in turn based on the work of \citet{lhd89} and D\'{e}sert, Boulanger \& Puget
208: (1990) who decompose the PAH cross--section into three parts; UV-visual continuum, IR
209: continuum, and IR lines. The PAH cross--section is based both on laboratory data
210: (UV--visual; IR line integrated cross sections) and observations of the reflection nebula
211: NGC~2023 (IR line widths and continuum). These PAH cross--sections do not include a
212: 2175~\AA\ bump, whereas many laboratory data suggest that PAH molecules do have absorption
213: features in the UV, though they have difficulty reproducing the observed stability of the
214: central wavelength of the bump. In light of the uncertainty in constructing dust grain
215: models, we do not consider this a serious problem; as greater understanding of dust grain
216: behavior becomes available (including, for example, accounting for the non-bulk nature of
217: the optical properties of nano-sized grains and molecules), our input dust model can be
218: easily extended to include these sorts of refinements. Since the origin of some of the PAH
219: emission line features is in C--C modes and others in C--H modes, their relative strengths
220: can be adjusted by allowing the hydrogen coverage $(x_H \equiv H_{present}/H_{sites})$ to
221: vary \citep{pl89}. As our purpose here is not the detailed fitting of individual objects
222: nor the prediction of the strengths of individual aromatic features, we set $x_H = 1$ and
223: do not investigate the effects of varying it further.
224:
225: Mathis, Rumpl \& Nordseick (1977, MRN) showed that the near IR to far UV extinction curve
226: could be reproduced by a simple two component (graphite + silicates) dust model with a
227: power law size distribution, $n(a) \propto a^{-3.5}$. The original MRN model included
228: grain sizes from $a_{min} = 50$~\AA\ to $a_{max} = 0.25~\micron$. The large lower limit on
229: the size of the grains in the MRN model is a serious limitation. The grains are large
230: enough that they almost always maintain equilibrium temperatures which are too low to
231: explain the observed emission shortward of $\sim 60~\micron$ in the Milky Way and other
232: galaxies. Modeling the near to mid-IR emission requires the inclusion of a population of
233: small grains that undergo temperature fluctuations and hence spend some fraction of the
234: time emitting at temperatures in substantial excess of their equilibrium temperature (see
235: \S \ref{sec:trans}). In our model, the graphite, AMC, and silicate grains have radii that
236: extend from $a_{min} = 8.5$\AA\ to $a_{max} = 3 \micron$.
237:
238: Since the grain optical constants used to derive the scattering, emission, and absorption
239: efficiencies of the grains do not vary depending on the extinction curve, reproducing the
240: observed extinction curve features in the different environments requires that we vary the
241: size distributions and relative abundances of the different grain species. We derive the
242: size distributions, $dn(a)/da$ (grains $\micron^{-1}$ H$^{-1}$), of the graphite, AMC, and
243: silicate grains from fits to the observed extinction curves in various environments,
244: including the Milky Way, and the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds (MW, LMC, \& SMC). We
245: have constructed two dust models for each extinction curve, one consisting of a population
246: of graphite and silicate grains (A) and the other of graphite, AMC, and silicate grains
247: (B). The observed extinction curves are fit using the maximum entropy method which seeks
248: to find the smoothest size distributions consistent with the observations
249: \citep{kmh94,cwgm00,wolff+01}.
250: %The fitting procedure is very insensitive to the value of the upper
251: %size limit in the size distribution as the number of large grains decreases exponentially
252: %above $\sim$1~\micron\ \citep{cwgm00}.
253: The size distributions and relative abundances of the grain components are adjusted to
254: best fit the overall shape of the observed extinction curves. For example, since our
255: grain model identifies the carriers of the 2175~\AA\ feature as small graphite grains, the
256: presence of the 2175~\AA\ feature in the Milky Way extinction curve requires a large
257: population of these carriers. The population of small graphite grains in the SMC will be
258: reduced with respect to the MW to reproduce the observed absence of the 2175~\AA\
259: extinction feature. On the other hand, the paucity of small graphitic grains in our SMC
260: dust models requires a large population of small silicate grains in order to reproduce the
261: steep far UV rise in the SMC extinction curve. Small silicate grains will be even more
262: important in the three component (silicate, AMC, and graphite) dust model for the SMC
263: since essentially all the carbon is amorphous in our dust model and does not contribute to
264: the far UV rise. The observed extinction curves were taken from the literature: The MW
265: curve is taken to be the average MW curve as parameterized by Cardelli, Clayton \& Mathis
266: (1989) with $R_V = 3.1$. We fit two average LMC extinction curves, one derived from
267: observations near the superbubble LMC~2 and the other from observations in the rest of the
268: LMC \citep{mcg99}. The SMC extinction curve is taken from \citet{gc98}.
269:
270: Models A and B are both extended to include a PAH component. The PAH component is included
271: as an extension of the carbonaceous component grain size distribution to a minimum size of
272: 4~\AA\ ($\sim 20$ carbon atoms; $a_{PAH} \simeq 0.9 \sqrt{N_C}$~\AA). At the upper end of
273: the PAH size distribution, we require that the number of carbon atoms in the largest PAH
274: molecule equal the number of carbon atoms in the smallest carbonaceous grain. For
275: example, a spherical graphite grain of radius 8.5~\AA\ contains $N_C = (a/1.29)^3 \simeq
276: 300$ carbon atoms, which we take as the number of carbon atoms in the largest PAH
277: molecule, corresponding to a maximum PAH size of $\sim 16$~\AA. The PAH are tied to the
278: graphite grain size distribution and the AMC grain size distribution for models A and B,
279: respectively. Although the exact shape of the size distribution of small grains and
280: molecules is not well known and not well constrained by extinction curve fitting, a
281: substantial population is required, both to reproduced the observed extinction as well as
282: the mid IR emission from dust; for the PAH size distribution, we assume a log-normal form
283: given by
284:
285: \begin{equation}
286: \frac{dn(a)}{da} = \frac{A}{a} \mathrm{e} ^{-2.0 \left[ \ln \left(\frac{a}{4}\right)\right]^2}
287: \label{eq:pah_dnda}
288: \end{equation}
289:
290: \noindent
291: (Weingartner \& Draine 2000) where $A$ is a normalization which we derive by
292: requiring that the graphite and PAH size distributions merge smoothly at $N_C = 300$,
293: i.e.,
294:
295: \begin{equation}
296: \left. \left[
297: \left( \frac{dn}{dN_C} \right) _{PAH} = \left( \frac{dn}{dN_C} \right) _{Gr/AMC} \right]
298: \right| _{N_C = 300}.
299: \label{eq:pah_norm}
300: \end{equation}
301:
302: \noindent
303: After including the PAH component, the size distributions of the carbonaceous grains are
304: normalized to insure conservation of the total mass of carbon in the dust model. In Table
305: \ref{tbl:dust_abundance}, we report the abundances of each grain component in the
306: four dust models we consider (MW, LMC, LMC~2, \& SMC). In Figures \ref{fig:ext_mw} and
307: \ref{fig:ext_smc}, we show the observed extinction curves for the MW and SMC,
308: respectively, along with our model predictions. The model extinction curves have been
309: decomposed into the contributions from the three grain components.
310:
311: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
312: %% Figures 1 a&b %%
313: \begin{figure}[t]
314: \plottwo{fig1a.eps}
315: {fig1b.eps}
316: \caption{Extinction curves for the adopted Milky Way dust models.
317: (a) Three component (silicate, graphite, and PAH; Model A) (b) Four component (silicate,
318: AMC, graphite, and PAH; Model B). The contribution of each dust grain component to the
319: extinction is plotted along with a CCM \citep{ccm} curve with R$_V$ =
320: 3.1. \label{fig:ext_mw}}
321: \end{figure}
322:
323: %% Figures 2 a&b %%
324: \begin{figure}
325: \plottwo{fig2a.eps}
326: {fig2b.eps}
327: \caption{Same as Figure \ref{fig:ext_mw} except for our adopted SMC dust models. The
328: observed average SMC extinction curve is taken from \citet{gc98}. \label{fig:ext_smc}}
329: \end{figure}
330: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
331:
332: A grain model that is able to fit the observed extinction curves should also provide an
333: acceptable fit to the observed emission. We have calculated the emission expected from
334: our dust model when exposed to the local radiation field as a check on the model. The
335: local radiation field was taken from Mathis, Mezger, \& Panagia (1983). As can be seen in Figure
336: \ref{fig:dust_spectrum_isrf}, our MW grain model reproduces the diffuse interstellar IR
337: emission reasonably well from $\sim 3-1000~\micron$ though it overestimates by roughly
338: a factor of two the emission in the 60, 100, and 140~\micron\ bands. This disagreement
339: is not unexpected as we have optimized our grain model to fit the observed average diffuse
340: extinction, not the emission; the emission and extinction are observed along different
341: lines of site and the dust grain populations are not necessarily the same.
342:
343: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
344: %% Figures 3 %%
345: \begin{figure}
346: \plotone{fig3.eps}
347: \caption{Predicted emission spectrum from our MW dust model exposed to the local interstellar
348: radiation field and compared to the observed diffuse ISM spectrum. The radiation field is
349: taken from \citet{mmp83}. The predicted model spectrum (solid line) is decomposed into
350: emission components from PAH molecules (dot-dash line) large ($>$100~\AA) graphite and
351: silicate grains (dotted and triple dot-dash lines, respectively) and small ($\le$100~\AA)
352: graphite and silicate grains (short dash and long dash lines, respectively). The IRAS
353: data (squares) are taken from \citet{bp88}; DIRBE (circles) and FIRAS (solid line) data
354: are taken from \citet{d97}. \label{fig:dust_spectrum_isrf}}
355: \end{figure}
356: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
357:
358: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
359: %% Table 1 %%
360: \begin{deluxetable}{llcccc}
361: \tablewidth{0pt}
362: \tablecaption{Model Dust Abundances \label{tbl:dust_abundance}}
363: \tablehead{
364: & & \colhead{MW} & \colhead{LMC} & \colhead{LMC~2} & \colhead{SMC}
365: }
366: \startdata
367: & Z$_{si}$\tablenotemark{a,b} & $5.8\times 10^{-3}$ & $1.9\times 10^{-3}$ &
368: $2.0\times 10^{-3}$ & $1.1\times 10^{-3}$ \\
369:
370: & Z$_{gr}$\tablenotemark{a} & $3.6\times 10^{-3}$ & $7.6\times 10^{-4}$ &
371: $7.7\times 10^{-4}$ & $2.4\times 10^{-4}$ \\
372:
373: Model A & Z$_{PAH}$\tablenotemark{a} & $2.1\times 10^{-4}$ & $4.8\times 10^{-5}$ &
374: $4.2\times 10^{-5}$ & $9.3\times 10^{-6}$ \\
375:
376: & [C/H]\tablenotemark{c} & 320 & 68 & 68 & 21 \\
377: & [Si/H]\tablenotemark{c} & 34 & 11 & 12 & 6 \\
378: & & & & & \\
379: \hline
380: & & & & & \\
381: & Z$_{si}$\tablenotemark{a,b} & $5.7\times 10^{-3}$ & $1.9\times 10^{-3}$ &
382: $2.1\times 10^{-3}$ & $1.4\times 10^{-3}$ \\
383:
384: & Z$_{AMC}$\tablenotemark{a} & $2.2\times 10^{-3}$ & $4.2\times 10^{-4}$ &
385: $5.0\times 10^{-4}$ & $1.4\times 10^{-4}$ \\
386:
387: Model B & Z$_{gr}$\tablenotemark{a} & $8.1\times 10^{-4}$ & $2.6\times 10^{-4}$ &
388: $1.8\times 10^{-4}$ & \nodata \\
389:
390: & Z$_{PAH}$\tablenotemark{a} & $2.2\times 10^{-4}$ & $4.7\times 10^{-5}$ &
391: $5.0\times 10^{-5}$ & $1.5\times 10^{-5}$ \\
392:
393: & [C/H]\tablenotemark{c} & 271 & 61 & 61 & 13 \\
394: & [Si/H]\tablenotemark{c} & 33 & 11 & 12 & 8 \\
395:
396: \enddata
397:
398: \tablenotetext{a}{Fraction by mass relative to hydrogen.}
399: \tablenotetext{b}{Assuming a mixture of crystalline fosterite
400: (Mg$_2$SiO$_4$) and fayalite (Fe$_2$SiO$_4$) for the silicate dust.}
401: \tablenotetext{c}{Abundance of carbon and silicon (assuming
402: Mg$_2$SiO$_4$ and Fe$_2$SiO$_4$ in equal parts) relative to hydrogen, in PPM.}
403: \end{deluxetable}
404: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
405:
406: \section{Dust Heating and Emission}
407: \label{sec:physics}
408: In this section we describe the derivation of the dust emission spectrum given a dust
409: grain model and heating sources. The determination of the emission spectrum reduces to
410: the problem of determining the temperature dust grains of a given size and composition
411: will reach when exposed to a radiation field. We outline the relevant equations for
412: both equilibrium and single--photon, or transient, heating of dust grains. The actual
413: implementation of our heating code is discussed in \S\ref{sec:comp_method}.
414:
415: \subsection{Equilibrium Heating}
416: \label{sec:equi}
417:
418: The monochromatic energy absorbed by a spherical dust grain of radius $a$ and species $i$
419: exposed to a radiation field $J_{\lambda}$ is given by
420:
421: \begin{equation}
422: E^{abs}_{i}(a,\lambda) = 4\pi \: \sigma_{i}(a,\lambda) \: J_{\lambda}
423: \label{eq:eq_ab_spec_ia}
424: \end{equation}
425:
426: \noindent
427: where $\sigma_{i}(a,\lambda)$ is the absorption cross section. The energy emitted by the
428: same particle can be expressed by
429:
430: \begin{equation}
431: E^{em}_{i}(a,\lambda) = 4\pi \: \sigma_{i}(a,\lambda) \: B_{\lambda}(T_{i,a})
432: \label{eq:eq_em_spec_ia}
433: \end{equation}
434:
435: \noindent
436: where $B_{\lambda}(T_{i,a})$ is the Planck function evaluated at the temperature of
437: the grain. Thus, in a volume of space within which it is assumed $J_{\lambda}$ is
438: constant, the equation describing the equilibrium between the energy absorbed and emitted
439: by a single grain of radius $a$ can be written
440:
441: \begin{equation}
442: \int\limits_{0}^{\infty} \! d\lambda \;\; \sigma_{i}(a,\lambda) \: J_{\lambda} =
443: \int\limits_{0}^{\infty} \! d\lambda \;\; \sigma_{i}(a,\lambda) \: B_{\lambda}(T_{i,a}).
444: \label{eq:eq_energy_balance_ia}
445: \end{equation}
446:
447: \noindent
448: Eq. (\ref{eq:eq_energy_balance_ia}) can be solved iteratively for the equilibrium
449: temperature of the dust grain. With the temperature of each individual dust grains known,
450: the dust emission spectrum from all species and grain sizes is calculated in a
451: straightforward manner:
452:
453: \begin{equation}
454: L(\lambda) = 4\pi \sum_{i} \int\limits_{a_{min}}^{a_{max}}\! da \;\; n_{i}(a) \:
455: \sigma_{i}(a,\lambda) \: B_{\lambda}(T_{i,a}).
456: \label{eq:eq_dust_spectrum}
457: \end{equation}
458:
459: \subsection{Transient Heating}
460: \label{sec:trans}
461: The main assumption in the above discussion is that the dust grains reach equilibrium with
462: the radiation field and can be characterized by a single temperature. While this
463: assumption is valid for large grains, it is not generally true for small grains. The
464: absorption of a single high energy photon by a small grain can raise its temperature
465: significantly above its equilibrium temperature. Which grains fall into the ``large'' and
466: ``small'' categories depends on the grain composition as well as the characteristics of
467: the radiation field, for computational purposes the division can be roughly made at $a
468: \simeq 100$~\AA. For example, a 100~\AA\ graphite grain at a temperature of 25~K which
469: absorbs a Lyman limit photon ($\lambda = 912$~\AA) is heated to $\sim 39$~K, while a
470: 40~\AA\ grain will reach a temperature of $\sim 90$~K, with the temperature change
471: becoming progressively larger for smaller and smaller grains. This temperature represents
472: the maximum temperature the grain can reach. So while grains of all sizes will
473: have time dependent temperatures characterized by a probability distribution, $P(T)$,
474: rather than a single temperature, $P(T)$ will be narrowly distributed about the
475: equilibrium temperature for large grains but small grains will have very broad temperature
476: probability distributions. In this case, the Planck function in Eq.
477: \ref{eq:eq_dust_spectrum} must be replaced by an integral over the probability
478: distribution, $P(T)$;
479:
480: \begin{equation}
481: L(\lambda) = 4\pi \sum_{i} \int\limits_{a_{min}}^{a_{max}}\! da \;\; n_{i}(a) \:
482: \sigma_{i}(a,\lambda) \: \int \! dT \;\; B_{\lambda}(T_{i,a}) \: P(T_{i,a}).
483: \label{eq:tr_dust_spectrum}
484: \end{equation}
485:
486: \noindent
487: It can be seen that Eq. \ref{eq:eq_dust_spectrum} is a special case of Eq.
488: \ref{eq:tr_dust_spectrum} with $P(T) = \delta(T-T_{eq})$. In determining $P(T)$, we follow
489: the method of \citet{gd89}. They define a transition matrix $A_{f,i}$
490: whose elements are the probabilities that a grain undergoes transitions between
491: arbitrarily chosen internal energy states $i$ and $f$. Determining $P(T)$ then amounts to
492: solving the matrix equation
493:
494: \begin{equation}
495: \sum_{i=1}^N A_{f,i}P_i = 0.
496: \label{eq:matrix_eq}
497: \end{equation}
498:
499: \noindent
500: The elements of $A_{f,i}$ are given by, in the case of heating ($f > i$)
501:
502: \begin{equation}
503: A_{f,i} = 4\pi \: \sigma(a,\lambda) \: J_{\lambda} \frac{hc\Delta H_f}{(H_f - H_i)^3}
504: \label{eq:matrix_heating}
505: \end{equation}
506:
507: \noindent
508: where $H_f$ and $H_i$ are the enthalpies of the final and initial states respectively and
509: $\Delta H_f$ is the width of the final state. In the case of cooling ($f < i$), the
510: elements of $A_{f,i}$ are given by
511:
512: \begin{equation}
513: A_{f,i} = \left\{
514: \begin{array}{rcr}
515: \frac{4\pi}{\Delta H_i} \int\limits_{0}^{\infty}\!d\lambda \;\; \sigma(a,\lambda) \:
516: B_\lambda(T_i) & \qquad & i = f+1 \\
517: 0 & \qquad & \mbox{otherwise}
518: \end{array}
519: \right.
520: \label{eq:matrix_cooling}
521: \end{equation}
522:
523: \noindent
524: The requirement $i=f+1$ unrealistically allows cooling transitions to occur only to the
525: next lower level. While this has little effect at short wavelengths ($<$40~\micron), it
526: can underestimate the emission from small grains at submm wavelengths (e.g., Siebenmorgen,
527: Krugel \& Mathis 1992). However, the solution of Eq. \ref{eq:matrix_eq} without the
528: assumption of Eq. \ref{eq:matrix_cooling} would require the inversion of a large matrix
529: which is prohibitively expensive in computation time when incorporated in our radiative
530: transfer code. As the long wavelength emission from dust is dominated by large grains in
531: our application and speed is crucial, we adopt Eq. \ref{eq:matrix_cooling} and the
532: attendant fast solution to Eq. \ref{eq:matrix_eq} outlined by \citet{gd89}. Note that in
533: the above discussion we consider only radiative processes, which are the most important
534: for the modeling considered here. However, other sources of grain heating (e.g.,
535: electron-grain collisions) and cooling (e.g., photoelectric emission) can be modeled by
536: additional terms in Eqs. \ref{eq:eq_energy_balance_ia}, \ref{eq:matrix_heating} \&
537: \ref{eq:matrix_cooling} \citep{gd89}.
538:
539: In Figure \ref{fig:prob_dist_isrf}, we show the grain temperature probability
540: distributions (Eq. \ref{eq:matrix_eq}) obtained from our algorithm when the grains are
541: placed in the Milky Way local radiation field (\S \ref{sec:dust_model}). Although the
542: specifics of the probability distributions will vary with the radiation field, the general
543: behaviors exhibited in Figure \ref{fig:prob_dist_isrf} are characteristic (e.g.,
544: Siebenmorgen et al. 1992). The smaller grains have very broad temperature distributions
545: indicating that they have a significant probability of reaching temperatures well above
546: and below their equilibrium temperatures. As the grain size increases, the probability
547: distributions in a given radiation field narrow, approaching a delta function centered on
548: their equilibrium temperatures. The width of the probability distribution is an
549: indication of whether the grain heating can be treated as an equilibrium process
550: (\S\ref{sec:comp_method}); the narrower the distribution the less important transient
551: heating effects become.
552:
553: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
554: %% Figures 4 %%
555: \begin{figure}
556: \plottwo{fig4a.eps}
557: {fig4b.eps}
558: \caption{Model calculations of the temperature probability distributions of silicate and
559: graphite grains of various sizes when exposed to the local interstellar radiation field
560: \citep{mmp83}.
561: \label{fig:prob_dist_isrf}}
562: \end{figure}
563: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
564:
565: The PAH component of our dust model (\S \ref{sec:dust_model}) will also undergo
566: temperature fluctuations. If the cooling behavior of the molecule is known, the emission
567: from the molecules can be calculated using time averages \citep{lp84}. The advantage of
568: this treatment over that of \citet{gd89} outlined above is an order of magnitude increase
569: in the speed of the calculation (Siebenmorgen, Krugel \& Mathis 1992). We treat the
570: transient heating of the PAH component via time averages assuming a time dependence for
571: the temperature of the molecule
572:
573: \begin{equation}
574: T(t) = (T_p^{-0.4} + 0.005 t)^{-2.5}
575: \label{eq:pah_cooling}
576: \end{equation}
577:
578: \noindent
579: where $T_p$ is the peak temperature reached by the molecule \citep{skm92}. The mean time
580: between photon absorptions is calculated from
581:
582: \begin{equation}
583: \frac{1}{\overline{t}} = \frac{4\pi}{hc}\int\limits_0^{\lambda_c} \! d\lambda \: \lambda
584: \: \sigma (a,\lambda) \: J_{\lambda}
585: \label{eq:mean_time}
586: \end{equation}
587:
588: \noindent
589: where $\lambda_c$ is the cut-off wavelength in the optical/UV cross-section of the PAH
590: molecule, defined by $\lambda_c = a/12.5$\micron, when $a$ is in \AA\ \citep{dbp90}. The
591: existence of a cut-off wavelength in the optical/UV cross-section of the PAH results from
592: the discrete nature of the electronic levels in neutral PAH molecules \citep{dbp90}. It is
593: assumed that the molecule absorbs a single photon of wavelength
594:
595: \begin{equation}
596: \lambda_{abs} = \frac{\int\limits_0^{\lambda_c} \! d\lambda \;\; \lambda \:
597: \sigma (a,\lambda) \: J_{\lambda}}{\int\limits_0^{\lambda_c} \! d\lambda \;\;
598: \sigma (a,\lambda) \: J_{\lambda}}
599: \label{eq:mean_wave}
600: \end{equation}
601:
602: \noindent
603: and cools following Eq. \ref{eq:pah_cooling} with $T_p$ calculated from the enthalpy of
604: the PAH molecule. The PAH emission spectrum is then calculated
605: from
606:
607: \begin{equation}
608: L_{PAH}(a,\lambda) = 4\pi \: \sigma (a,\lambda) \: \overline{B[T(t)]}
609: \label{eq:pah_spec}
610: \end{equation}
611:
612: \noindent
613: where the bar indicates an average taken over the mean time between photon absorptions
614: (Eq. \ref{eq:mean_time}). With the cooling behavior of the molecule approximated by Eq.
615: \ref{eq:pah_cooling}, energy conservation is not necessarily strictly maintained and we
616: re-normalize the emitted spectrum to ensure energy conservation \citep{skm92}. Treating
617: the PAH emission in this manner is significantly faster than the matrix method of
618: \citet{gd89} outlined above for the small carbon and silicate grains \citep{skm92}.
619:
620: As stated above, treating the transient heating of a grain or molecule, requires knowledge of their enthalpy
621: (e.g., Eqs. \ref{eq:matrix_heating},\ref{eq:matrix_cooling},\ref{eq:pah_cooling}). The enthalpy
622: of the grains at temperature $T$ is defined in terms of their specific heats, $C(T)$, through
623:
624: \begin{equation}
625: H(T) = \int\limits_{0}^{T} \! dT \; C(T).
626: \label{eq:enthalpy}
627: \end{equation}
628:
629: \noindent
630: Specific heats and enthalpies for the graphite and silicate grains were taken from
631: \citet{gd89}. The enthalpy for the AMC component was assumed to be the same as that of the
632: graphite grains. The specific heat for the PAH molecules was taken from the linear
633: approximation of \citet{sgbd98} to the data of \citet{lhd89}.
634:
635: \subsection{Computational Method}
636: \label{sec:comp_method}
637: In order to compute the radiative transfer and dust emission for a system, we define the
638: spatial distributions of the gas, dust, and heating sources within an arbitrary three
639: dimensional model space. To illustrate the dependence of the IR spectrum on various
640: parameters, here we consider a spatial grid in the shape of a cube divided into $N^{3}$
641: bins. The number of model bins essentially establishes the smallest spatial scale of
642: inhomogeneity resolved by the model, since the ratio of clump size to system radius is
643: defined by $1/N$ \citep{wg96}. For the models consider here, we adopt $N = 30$. We
644: consider a two-phase clumpy medium consisting of high and low density clumps, where the
645: density of each bin is assigned randomly. The frequency of occurrence of high density
646: clumps is determined by the filling factor ($f\!\!f$) and the relative density of high and
647: low density model bins is characterized by the density ratio, $k = k_2/k_1$ where $k_2$
648: and $k_1$ are the densities of the low and high density media, respectively. In the
649: following, we describe our computational method.
650:
651: A single run of our model (where by single run we refer to a single set of input
652: parameters, e.g., dust grain model, heating sources and their relative distribution, size,
653: optical depth, filling factor, and density ratio) consists of the following iterative
654: procedure:
655:
656: \begin{enumerate}
657:
658: \item Monte Carlo radiative transfer of the photons from stellar and nebular sources
659: through the model space, resulting in the directly transmitted, scattered, and absorbed
660: fractions of the initial input photons in each model bin.
661:
662: \item Calculation of the dust emission spectrum based on the heating supplied by the
663: fraction of the input energy absorbed in the dust and the choice of dust model.
664:
665: \item Monte Carlo radiative transfer of the emitted {\em dust} spectrum through the model
666: space, resulting in a new grid of transmitted, scattered, and absorbed fractions.
667:
668: \item Convergence check. If the fractional change in the absorbed energy grid from the
669: previous iteration is less than some tolerance (we have taken $\delta = 0.01$),
670: convergence is achieved and the run terminates. Otherwise, return to step 2 with the
671: new absorbed energy grid.
672:
673: \end{enumerate}
674:
675: \noindent
676: In the following, we will describe in some detail steps 2 and 4. For a detailed
677: discussion of the Monte Carlo radiative transfer algorithm, the reader is referred to
678: \citet{gmwc00}.
679:
680: From the Monte Carlo radiative transfer, we calculate $E_{abs,i}(\lambda)$, the total
681: energy absorbed in each model bin. This grid of absorbed energy is passed to the dust
682: heating algorithm. With reference to Eqs. \ref{eq:eq_energy_balance_ia} and
683: \ref{eq:matrix_heating}, we see that we require the specific intensity of the radiation
684: field, $J_{\lambda,i}$ in the $i^{th}$ bin in order to calculate the dust temperatures and
685: hence the dust spectrum in that bin. In the following, we drop the subscript $i$ and
686: implicitly assume that the calculations described are to be done in {\em each} of the
687: $N^{3}$ bins. In order to calculate $J_{\lambda}$ from the absorbed energy, we make use
688: of Eq. \ref{eq:eq_ab_spec_ia}. Multiplying by the size distribution, integrating over
689: grain size and summing over species, the left hand side of Eq. \ref{eq:eq_ab_spec_ia}
690: becomes the total energy absorbed by all grain components of all sizes and we can write
691:
692: \begin{equation}
693: E_{abs}(\lambda) = 4\pi J_{\lambda} \overline{\sigma (\lambda)}
694: \label{eq:EJ}
695: \end{equation}
696:
697: \noindent
698: where $\overline{\sigma (\lambda)}$ is the total cross section per
699: unit volume of the grain population:
700:
701: \begin{equation}
702: \overline{\sigma (\lambda)} = \sum \int\limits_{a_{min}}^{a_{max}}\!\! da \; \frac{dn(a)}{da}
703: \sigma (a,\lambda)
704: \label{eq:Total_CS}
705: \end{equation}
706:
707: \noindent
708: where the sum is over all grain components (i.e., graphite, silicates, and PAH molecules).
709: Thus, we derive the radiation field
710:
711: \begin{equation}
712: J_{\lambda} = \frac{E_{abs}(\lambda)}{4\pi \overline{\sigma (\lambda)}}.
713: \label{eq:J}
714: \end{equation}
715:
716: \noindent
717: With $J_{\lambda}$ known, we can proceed to deriving the temperature of each grain species and size
718: in the equilibrium case or the temperature probability distribution in the transient case.
719:
720: The heating algorithm proceeds as follows. The contribution of the PAH component to the
721: emitted spectrum in each bin is calculated from a straightforward application of Eqs.
722: \ref{eq:pah_cooling}--\ref{eq:pah_spec}. For the graphite and silicate grains, the
723: calculation can be considerably more complicated. For grains with sizes $a > 100$\AA, we
724: solve Eq. \ref{eq:eq_energy_balance_ia} iteratively for the temperature and the
725: contribution of each grain size and species to the total dust spectrum in the bin is
726: calculated via Eq. \ref{eq:eq_dust_spectrum}. For grains with sizes $a \le 100$\AA, we
727: allow for the grain to undergo temperature fluctuations as described in \S\ref{sec:trans}.
728: Computationally, the grain temperature must be divided into a discrete mesh. The
729: temperature is related to the enthalpy of the grains, so selecting the temperature mesh is
730: equivalent to defining the enthalpy mesh to be used in calculating the elements of the
731: transition matrix, $A_{f,i}$ (Eqs. \ref{eq:matrix_heating} \& \ref{eq:matrix_cooling}).
732: Care must be taken in defining the temperature mesh; the transition matrix in Eq.
733: \ref{eq:matrix_eq} is $N_T\times N_T$ where $N_T$ is the number of temperatures in the
734: mesh. As solving Eq. \ref{eq:matrix_eq} is the most computationally expensive part of
735: the code, it is advantageous to keep $N_T$ as small as possible. However, the probability
736: distribution $P(T)$ must be well sampled, especially where it is changing rapidly. Hence
737: it is crucial to select the temperature interval and $N_T$ carefully. We adopt an
738: iterative approach to both the temperature interval selection as well as the number of
739: bins. Considerable effort is made to set up the initial mesh carefully and our algorithm
740: incorporates as much {\em a priori} information about the behavior of $P(T)$ with grain
741: size as possible. For example, referring to Figures \ref{fig:prob_dist_isrf}a,b, very
742: small grains have very broad, slowly varying temperature distributions and a broad, coarse
743: grid may be sufficient to determine $P(T)$. On the other hand, as we near the transition
744: region between ``small'' and ``large'' grains, $P(T)$ becomes increasingly peaked near the
745: equilibrium temperature and the broad, coarse mesh is not sufficient to sample it well.
746: We start the algorithm by defining a relatively narrow, coarse mesh with $N_T = 50$
747: equally spaced temperature intervals centered on $T_{eq}$,
748:
749: \begin{equation}
750: \begin{array}{rclcl}
751: 0.50~T_{eq} \le & T & \le 1.50~T_{eq} & \qquad & T_{eq} \le 100 \\
752: T_{eq} - 100 \le & T & \le T_{eq} + 100 & \qquad & T_{eq} > 100.
753: \end{array}
754: \end{equation}
755:
756: \noindent
757: Based on the behavior of $P(T)$ derived from Eq. \ref{eq:matrix_eq} with this temperature
758: grid, we adjust the upper and lower bounds of the temperature interval and the number of
759: enthalpy bins $N_T$. In the case of a large grain, the coarse initial mesh will be
760: insufficient to determine $P(T)$. The failure of the coarse mesh is manifested in a
761: probability distribution that is highly peaked at low temperatures and zero elsewhere,
762: i.e. it approaches one in the lowest temperature interval and zero in all other
763: temperature intervals. In this case, we increase the number of enthalpy bins, $N_T$, by
764: 50\% and repeat the calculation to $P(T)$. We repeat this procedure until $P(T)$ is well
765: behaved or we have exceeded the maximum number of enthalpy bins, $N_{T,max}$. $N_{T,max}$
766: is an input parameter that we have set to 800 for our model runs. In practice,
767: $N_{T,max}$, is not exceeded in the initial set up; generally, 75 to 112 bins are
768: sufficient to sample $P(T)$ and begin testing for convergence for even the largest grains
769: treated by the transient heating algorithm (see below). In the case of a small grain, $P(T)$
770: will be a smoothly varying function across the initial narrow temperature interval and
771: the interval needs to be expanded to insure we include the whole range of
772: temperatures that the grain has a non-negligible probability of achieving. In this case, we
773: expand the temperature interval to extend from $T_{min}=2.7$~K to $T_{max}=2500$~K and,
774: keeping $N_T = 50$, recalculate $P(T)$. This temperature interval brackets all likely
775: temperatures that the dust grain can reach. For very small grains, this coarse, broad
776: temperature mesh may be sufficient to begin testing for convergence. However, for
777: intermediate sized grains, $P(T)$ may again become peaked at low temperatures and approach
778: zero in the higher temperature bins. In this case, we define a new maximum temperature
779:
780: \begin{equation}
781: T_{max}^{new} = T_{max}^{old} + 0.5(T_{eq} - T_{max}^{old}).
782: \end{equation}
783:
784: \noindent
785: $N_T$ is increased by 50\% and a new $P(T)$ is derived with the new temperature mesh.
786: This procedure is iterated until $P(T)$ is well behaved in the interval. In practice, one
787: to two iterations are sufficient to roughly establish the correct temperature interval for
788: the grain.
789:
790: With the initial $P(T)$ determined as above, we calculate the predicted spectrum of the
791: transiently heated grain using Eq. \ref{eq:tr_dust_spectrum} and test for convergence. We
792: define the convergence of the transient heating algorithm based on a comparison of the
793: calculated total emitted energy and the absorbed energy,
794:
795: \begin{equation}
796: \frac{\Delta E}{E_{abs}} = \frac{\left| E_{abs} - E_{em} \right|}{E_{abs}}
797: \label{eq:e_cons}
798: \end{equation}
799:
800: \noindent
801: where $E_{abs}$ is calculated by integrating Eq. \ref{eq:eq_ab_spec_ia} over wavelength
802: and $E_{em}$ is calculated from
803:
804: \begin{equation}
805: E_{em} = 4\pi \int\limits_{0}^{\infty} d\lambda \;\; \sigma_{i}(a,\lambda) \: \int \! dT
806: \;\; B_{\lambda}(T_{i,a}) \: P(T_{i,a}).
807: \label{eq:tr_em_energy}
808: \end{equation}
809:
810: \noindent
811: For convergence, we require that $\Delta E/E_{abs} < \delta E$, where $\delta E$ is an
812: input parameter that we have set to 0.1 for the runs presented here. If the algorithm has not
813: converged, we define a new temperature interval, increase $N_T$ by 50\%, recalculate
814: $P(T)$ and re-evaluate $\Delta E/E_{abs}$. Since there is no
815: advantage to including temperature intervals where the grain has a very small probability
816: of finding itself ($P(T) \ll 1$), we define a cutoff probability, $P_{cut} =
817: 10^{-15}P_{max}$, where $P_{max}$ is the maximum of the probability distribution. The new
818: temperature interval is defined to exclude temperature bins for which $P(T) < P_{cut}$
819: \citep{mh98}. This procedure is iterated until convergence is achieved or we exceed
820: $N_{T,max}$. If $N_{T,max}$ is exceeded, the grain is treated as being at its equilibrium
821: temperature and its contribution to the spectrum is calculated with
822: Eq. \ref{eq:eq_dust_spectrum}. The transient heating algorithm is turned off and all
823: subsequent grain sizes are treated via the equilibrium heating formalism.
824:
825: We have tested our algorithm for calculating the transient emission spectrum in a wide
826: variety of radiation fields from the local ISRF to the radiation field in close
827: proximity to a hot star to a variety of the SES models described above. In all cases the
828: algorithm worked with no user interaction and produced probability distributions with the
829: correct behavior as a function of grain size and radiation field (e.g., see Figs.
830: \ref{fig:prob_dist_isrf}a,b). In addition, we have compared the results from our algorithm
831: with previous calculations in the literature \citep{skm92,mh98} with excellent
832: agreement. In light of these tests, we are confident that we can apply our model to a
833: range of situations with minimal adjustments to the heating calculation.
834:
835: A single run of the dust heating algorithm is complete when the above procedure has been
836: performed for all model bins for which the absorbed energy in that bin exceeds some cutoff
837: fraction. The cutoff fraction is determined as follows. In each bin we calculate the
838: fraction of the total energy absorbed,
839:
840: \begin{equation}
841: f_{abs,i} = \frac{E_{abs,i}}{\sum_i E_{abs,i}}.
842: \label{eq:frac_abs}
843: \end{equation}
844:
845: \noindent
846: We then calculate the quantity $\sum _i f_{abs,i}$ for $f_{abs,i} > f_{cut}$ for a variety
847: of values of $f_{cut}$. We adopt a value of $f_{cut}$ such that the total energy absorbed
848: in bins for which $f_{abs,i} > f_{cut}$ is larger than some target level of energy
849: conservation. The target level is taken as an input and is generally between 0.95 and 1.
850: This level represents the best possible energy conservation that can be achieved for the
851: run; model bins with $f_{abs,i} < f_{cut}$ are not included in the dust heating
852: algorithm. This procedure allows us to eliminate a large number of model bins in which
853: very little energy is absorbed, speeding up the calculation substantially with little cost in
854: accuracy.
855:
856: Upon completing a single run of the dust heating algorithm, we obtain the dust emission
857: spectrum from each point in the model. In order to allow for the treatment of large
858: optical depths and to account for the dust self--absorption, we now add the dust as a new
859: source of emitted photons. The Monte Carlo radiative transfer code is re--run, now using
860: the dust spectrum as the source of input photons rather than the stellar and nebular
861: sources. The contribution of the dust emission to the absorbed energy in each model bin
862: as derived from the Monte Carlo is then added back into the absorbed energy grid from the
863: previous iteration, and the fractional change in the total absorbed energy is computed.
864: We consider the entire model run to have converged if the fractional change in absorbed
865: energy $\delta < 0.01$. If $\delta \ge 0.01$, the new absorbed energy grid is passed to
866: the dust heating algorithm and steps 2--4 are repeated. When convergence is achieved in
867: step 4, a single model run has been completed. In general, even for large optical depths
868: (e.g., $\tau_V = 20 - 50$), convergence is achieved in fewer than 4 full iterations of
869: steps 2--4. For optical depths in the range of $\tau_V = 2 - 10$, 2 iterations are
870: normally sufficient to reach convergence.
871:
872: In addition to the far-UV to far-IR SED of the model, several other quantities are
873: included in the output upon the completion of a model run, including the size averaged
874: dust temperature for each dust component in each model bin, the relative fractions of the
875: total energy absorbed in the clump vs. interclump medium, and the total dust mass of the
876: model. We define the size averaged dust temperature for each dust component in the
877: following way;
878:
879: \begin{equation}
880: \label{eq:dust_temperature}
881: \overline{T}_i = \frac{\int\limits_{a_{min}}^{a_{max}}\! da \;\; n_{i}(a) T_{i}(a)}
882: {\int\limits_{a_{min}}^{a_{max}}\! da \;\; n_{i}(a)}.
883: \end{equation}
884:
885: \noindent
886: Note that in Eq. \ref{eq:dust_temperature}, $T_i$ is the equilibrium temperature of the
887: grain and hence the size averaged temperature does not account for the range of
888: temperatures reached by stochastically heated grains. Since we have the temperature in
889: each bin, $\overline{T}$ may be used to calculate the radial temperature distribution of
890: the dust in the model (see \S \ref{sec:application}).
891:
892: We calculate the total dust mass in each model in the following way:
893:
894: \begin{equation}
895: \label{eq:dust_mass}
896: M_{dust} = \sum _{i}^{N_{bins}} \frac{N_{H,i}}{\tau _{V,i}} \left[ \tilde{\tau}_{V,i} V_i \sum_{j}
897: \int\limits_{a_{min}}^{a_{max}}\!\! da \; \frac{4\pi}{3} a^3 \rho_{j} n_{j}(a) \right]
898: \end{equation}
899:
900: \noindent
901: where the sum over $i$ is taken over model bins, $\tilde{\tau}_{V,i}$ is the optical depth
902: per unit $pc$ at $V$ in the $i^{th}$ bin and $V_i$ is the volume of the $i^{th}$ bin in
903: $pc^{3}$. The term in brackets gives the dust mass per hydrogen column times
904: $\tau_{V,i}$, where the sum over $j$ is over dust components. In order to calculate the
905: total dust mass we assume a gas to dust ratio and a value of the ratio of total to
906: selective extinction, $R_V$. For each of the four dust models considered (see \S
907: \ref{sec:dust_model}), we take $R_V$ = 3.1 and a gas to dust ratio ($N_H/E(B-V))$of $5.8
908: \times 10^{21}$, $2.4 \times 10^{22}$, and $5.0 \times 10^{22}~~$ H
909: atoms/cm$^{2}$/mag$^{-1}$ for the MW, both LMC models, and the SMC, respectively.
910:
911: \section{An Example: Starburst Galaxies}
912: \label{sec:application}
913:
914: The \dm model is completely general in that we can treat arbitrary distributions of dust
915: and heating sources. However, to illustrate how the model predictions depend on various
916: input parameters, here we apply \dm to input stellar distributions and geometric
917: environments appropriate for the modeling of starburst galaxies \citep{gcw97,wg00}.
918: \citet{wg00} defined different star/dust geometries including DUSTY and SHELL geometries.
919: The DUSTY geometry contains dust and stars mixed together, with both extending to the
920: system radius. The SHELL geometry consists of stars extending to 0.3 of the system radius
921: with dust filling a shell extending from 0.3 to the system radius. Pictorial
922: representations of these geometries can be found in Fig. 1 of \citet{wg00}. We emphasize
923: that the DUSTY and SHELL geometries specify the global geometry of the model space;
924: locally, each model bin can be either clumpy or homogeneous, as characterized by the
925: $f\!\!f$ and the density ratio $k_2/k_1$. While the model is capable of handling any
926: arbitrary geometry, these two geometries are expected to be representative of a wide range
927: of star/dust geometries, e.g., embedded stellar populations and mixed stars and dust.
928:
929: Within the global geometries described above, MW, LMC, or SMC type dust (\S
930: \ref{sec:dust_model}) is distributed with a local geometry determined by the $f\!\!f$ and
931: density ratio. The stellar population is distributed uniformly within the global
932: geometries. The properties of the stellar population are taken from the stellar
933: evolutionary synthesis models of Fioc \& Rocca-Volmerange (1997, 2000;
934: http://www.iap.fr/users/fioc/PEGASE.html) (PEGASE models). The starburst models presented
935: here were run using an IMF with a mass range of $0.1 - 100 M_{\sun}$ with a Salpeter
936: slope, a constant star formation scenario, ages ranging from $0-19$~Gyr, with a range of
937: metallicities from $-$2.3 to 0.7, and include a nebular component. For a more detailed
938: discussion of the spectral synthesis model in the context of the \dm model, the reader is
939: referred to \citet{ghcrm99}. The input stellar SEDs are rebinned to $\sim120$ wavelength
940: points. The model SEDs for young input stellar populations exhibit features near
941: 0.37 and 0.67~\micron\ resulting from contributions to the rebinned SED from strong
942: nebular emission lines (O~II and H$\alpha$, N~II) in those wavelength regions.
943:
944: In the following discussion, we present the results of several sets of \dm model runs
945: using the starburst stellar distributions and geometries described above. We examine the
946: dependence of the spectrum, dust temperatures, and dust masses on variations in the input
947: parameters. The input parameters for \dm include: metallicity, star formation rate, and
948: age, which together determine the spectral shape and intensity of the input SED; the
949: filling factor ($f\!\!f$) and density ratio ($k=k_2/k_1$), which determine the clumpiness
950: of the scattering and absorbing dusty medium; the dust type which determines the
951: composition and size distribution of the dust grains; and the physical size of the region,
952: the global geometry, and the optical depth, $\tau_V$, which affect the dust mass as well
953: as the efficiency of a given mass of dust in absorbing the photons from the input SED.
954: The input optical depth, $\tau_V$, for both DUSTY and SHELL geometries is defined as the
955: radial optical depth, from the center to the edge of the model, that would result were the
956: dusty medium distributed homogeneously throughout the model space. The range of values
957: for these parameters is tabulated in Table \ref{tbl:model_param}. The case of the
958: application of \dm to starburst galaxies will be considered in more detail in a
959: forthcoming paper; in the following, we adopt dust Model A for illustrative purposes.
960:
961: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
962: %% Table 2 %%
963: \begin{deluxetable}{lccc}
964: \tablewidth{0pt}
965: %\tabletypesize{\large}
966: \tablecaption{Input Model Parameters \label{tbl:model_param}}
967: \tablehead{
968: \colhead{Parameter} & \colhead{Range} & \colhead{Figure Reference} & \colhead{Fixed
969: Value}\tablenotemark{a}
970: }
971: \startdata
972: Metallicity & -0.4 & \nodata & \nodata \\
973: Dust Type & MW,SMC & \ref{fig:tr_onoff},\ref{fig:sed_mwsmc_comp}(a) & \nodata \\
974: Dust Model & A,B & \ref{fig:sed_mwsmc_comp}(b) & A \\
975: Global Geometry & SHELL,DUSTY & \ref{fig:sed_var_tv_cgg}, \ref{fig:temp_var_tv_cgg},
976: \ref{fig:sed_var_tv}, \ref{fig:dust_mass} & \nodata \\
977: $f\!\!f$ (filling factor) & 0.05 -- 0.5 & \ref{fig:var_k_ff} & 0.15 \\
978: $k$ (density ratio) & 0.001 -- 0.177 & \ref{fig:var_k_ff} & 0.01 \\
979: SFR & 0.5 -- 200~M$_{\odot}$~yr$^{-1}$ & \ref{fig:var_age_sfr},\ref{fig:cnsmass_comp} & 1.6~M$_{\odot}$~yr$^{-1}$ \\
980: Age & $10^{6}$ -- $19 \times 10^{9}$~yr & \ref{fig:var_age_sfr},\ref{fig:cnsmass_comp} & 40~Myr \\
981: Size & 10 -- 5000~pc & \ref{fig:var_size_sh} & 1000~pc \\
982: $\tau_V$ & 0.5 -- 20.0 & \ref{fig:sed_var_tv_cgg}, \ref{fig:temp_var_tv_cgg},
983: \ref{fig:sed_var_tv}, \ref{fig:dust_mass} & 10 \\
984: \enddata
985:
986: \tablenotetext{a}{Fixed value of parameter for model runs for which some other parameter
987: is varied.}
988:
989: \end{deluxetable}
990: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
991:
992: \subsection{Transient Heating}
993: \label{sec:dis_trans}
994:
995: In Figure \ref{fig:tr_onoff}, we illustrate the effects of including the transient heating
996: (see \S\ref{sec:trans}) of small grains and molecules on the SEDs predicted by our
997: starburst model. Including the effects of transient heating in the model increases the
998: predicted emission between $5-30$~\micron\ by as much as a factor of 20 for the cases
999: presented in Figure \ref{fig:tr_onoff}.
1000:
1001: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1002: %% Figures 5 %%
1003: \begin{figure}
1004: \plotone{fig5.eps}
1005: \caption{Model SED's for MW and SMC type dust models with and without the effects of
1006: transient heating of the small grains. The equilibrium cases include neither the
1007: effects of transient heating nor the emission from small grains nor a molecular (PAH)
1008: component, the non equilibrium cases include both. All parameters are set to their
1009: values in column 4 of Table \ref{tbl:model_param} and a SHELL geometry is assumed.
1010: \label{fig:tr_onoff}}
1011: \end{figure}
1012: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1013:
1014: \subsection{Clumpiness}
1015: \label{sec:dis_clumpy}
1016: In this section, we illustrate the dependence of the predicted SED on the local structure
1017: of the absorbing medium. The local structure is characterized by $f\!\!f$ and $k$, and we
1018: keep all other model inputs fixed at their values listed in column 4 of Table
1019: \ref{tbl:model_param}, assuming a SHELL geometry and a model size of 30 bins per side. We
1020: have considered $f\!\!f$'s between $0.05$ and $0.5$, with a range of physical conditions
1021: varying from an extended low density medium with rare, isolated high density clumps to an
1022: interconnected network of high density clumps with a low density medium filling the voids.
1023: The value of $k$ is varied between $0.001$ and $1$ (homogeneous) in steps of factors of
1024: $\sim$5.62 ($k = 0.001,0.005,0.030,0.177,1.0$). The effect of varying $f\!\!f$ and $k$ on
1025: the SED is illustrated in Figs. \ref{fig:var_k_ff}a,b,c,d. We do not include the
1026: homogeneous case in the Figures as the change in the SED between $k = 0.177$ and $1$ is
1027: negligible for all values of $f\!\!f$. For all values of $f\!\!f$, the effect of
1028: increasing $k$ on the IR SED is to shift the peak of the dust emission to shorter
1029: wavelengths, corresponding to higher dust temperatures. The effect is quite small and
1030: becomes less pronounced with increasing $f\!\!f$ and for $f\!\!f > 0.20$, the IR SED's are
1031: essentially degenerate for different values of $k$. The dominant reason for this behavior
1032: is the increase in total energy absorbed by the dust with increasing $k$ at a constant
1033: $f\!\!f$ which results in more heating and higher dust temperatures. A smaller secondary
1034: contribution to the behavior results from the fact that at higher values of $k$, a
1035: correspondingly larger fraction of the energy is absorbed in the low density medium which
1036: reaches higher temperatures than the dense clumps. In any case, as can be seen from Fig.
1037: \ref{fig:var_k_ff}, the model IR SED is not very sensitive to the local structure of the
1038: medium. The dominant effects of $f\!\!f$ and $k$ are seen in the optical and UV SED
1039: \citep{wg96}.
1040:
1041: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1042: %% Figures 6 %%
1043: \begin{figure}
1044: \plottwo{fig6a.eps}{fig6b.eps}
1045: \end{figure}
1046:
1047: \begin{figure}
1048: \plottwo{fig6c.eps}{fig6d.eps}
1049: \caption{Model SED's for a range of density ratios ($k = 0.001$ solid line, $k = 0.005$
1050: dashed line, $k = 0.03$ dash-dot line, $k=0.177$ dash-triple dot line) with different
1051: filling factors; (a) $f\!\!f=0.05$, (b) $f\!\!f=0.1$, (c) $f\!\!f=0.2$, (d)
1052: $f\!\!f=0.5$. All models are calculated assuming SHELL geometry, 30 bins per side, and
1053: the remaining parameters specified in column 4 of Table \ref{tbl:model_param}.
1054: \label{fig:var_k_ff}}
1055: \end{figure}
1056: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1057:
1058: \subsection{Dust Type (MW vs SMC) \& Dust Model (A vs B)}
1059: \label{sec:dis_dust}
1060: Observations of UV extinction along different lines of sight in the local group of
1061: galaxies (e.g., mainly the MW, LMC, and SMC) have revealed a range of characteristic
1062: extinction curves which can be broadly associated with the galaxy being observed, although
1063: variations along different lines of sight within a given galaxy can be substantial (e.g.,
1064: Cardelli et al., 1989; Gordon \& Clayton, 1999; Misselt et al., 1999; Clayton et al.,
1065: 2000b). For illustrative purposes, in this paper we concentrate on MW and SMC type dust.
1066: The MW type dust extinction is characterized in the UV by the 2175~\AA\ bump and rising
1067: far UV extinction. On the other hand, the UV extinction in the SMC is conspicuous in the
1068: absence of the 2175~\AA\ feature. In addition, the far UV rise in the SMC extinction
1069: curve is nearly linear with $\lambda^{-1}$ and is steeper than in the MW. As discussed in
1070: \S\ref{sec:dust_model}, these extinction curve characteristics are reproduced in our model
1071: by varying the grain size distributions and the relative contributions of the various
1072: grain components to the extinction curve. Hence, the steepness of the far UV extinction
1073: in the SMC and the absence of the 2175~\AA\ feature require a larger number of small
1074: silicate grains and fewer small graphite grains, respectively, in the SMC dust model
1075: compared to the MW. In Figure \ref{fig:sed_mwsmc_comp}(a), the difference between
1076: utilizing MW and SMC type dust in our model is illustrated. The difference is manifested
1077: in the UV SED in the presence of an absorption feature near 0.22~$\micron$ in the SED
1078: derived using MW type dust and an increase in the far UV absorption in the SED derived
1079: using SMC type dust. There are also pronounced differences in the predicted IR SED
1080: depending on the dust model used. A subtle difference is seen in the depth of the $\sim
1081: 9.7~\micron$ absorption feature, which is deeper in the SMC SED compared to the MW curve.
1082: Since the $9.7~\micron$ feature is attributed to stretching and bending resonances in the
1083: small silicate grains \citep{w92}, its strength in the SMC SED is not surprising given
1084: that a large number of small silicate grains are required in the SMC dust model to
1085: reproduce the steep linear rise in the far UV extinction curve. The most apparent
1086: difference is the excess in mid IR emission present in the MW SED as compared to the SMC.
1087: This is easily understood in terms of the larger populations of small, graphitic grains
1088: and PAH molecules in the MW type dust model. These grain populations dominate the
1089: emission from grains undergoing transient heating (\S\ref{sec:trans}) and hence there are
1090: more small grains at high temperatures when the MW dust model is used resulting in
1091: increased emission in the mid IR. The mid IR emission from the SMC type dust can be
1092: enhanced by utilizing dust Model B (see \ref{fig:sed_mwsmc_comp}(b)). The low mid IR
1093: emission from the SMC type dust using dust Model A results from the paucity of small
1094: carbonaceous grains. By introducing a population of small carbonaceous grains in the form
1095: of AMC, the importance of transient heating is amplified without introducing a 2175~\AA\
1096: absorption feature in the resulting extinction curve.
1097:
1098: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1099: %% Figures 7 %%
1100: \begin{figure}
1101: \plottwo{fig7a.eps}{fig7b.eps}
1102: \caption{Comparison of the effects of using different grain models
1103: (\S\ref{sec:dust_model}) on the predicted starburst SED. (a)
1104: Comparison of MW and SMC type dust using grain model A. (b) Comparison
1105: of SMC type dust using grain models A \& B. All SEDs calculated for same
1106: set of input parameters (see Table \ref{tbl:model_param}, column 4)
1107: save the dust type and grain model.
1108: \label{fig:sed_mwsmc_comp}}
1109: \epsscale{1}
1110: \end{figure}
1111: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1112:
1113: Observationally, a substantial population of small grains undergoing temperature
1114: fluctuations would be manifested in higher mid IR fluxes than expected from large grains
1115: in equilibrium. Indeed, ground based observations \citep{a78,swd83,s84,s+85} along with
1116: early results from the IRAS satellite (e.g., Boulanger et.\ al.\ 1988; Boulanger \&
1117: P\'{e}rault 1988 and references therein) of significant emission in the mid IR in a
1118: variety of environments were a large driving force in the development of ways to treat the
1119: heating of small grains and the recognition that small grains must be a significant
1120: component of interstellar dust \citep{lp84,da85,d86}. The effect of increased emission in
1121: the mid IR on, for example, IRAS colors, is to increase the
1122: F$_{\lambda}(12\micron)$/F$_{\lambda}(25\micron)$ and
1123: F$_{\lambda}(25\micron)$/F$_{\lambda}(60\micron)$ flux ratios. As we are illustrating the
1124: behavior of the \dm model in the context of a starburst galaxy model in this paper, in
1125: Figures \ref{fig:cc_plots}a--c, we plot the IRAS colors of starburst galaxies with
1126: measured fluxes in all four IRAS bands from the sample of \citet{gcw97}, along with tracks
1127: from runs of the \dm model. Runs are included for a range of optical depths, physical
1128: sizes, star formation rates, geometries, and all were run using dust Model A. Model data
1129: points were determined by convolving model SEDs with the response functions of the IRAS
1130: bandpasses as tabulated in the online IRAS Explanatory Supplement.
1131:
1132: The first thing to notice is that the model results cover essentially the full range of
1133: observed starburst colors. However, in detail, the model colors show some discrepancies
1134: compared to observations, as is especially evident in Figures \ref{fig:cc_plots}b \& c.
1135: The discrepancy between the model colors and the starburst data is attributable to low mid
1136: IR fluxes predicted by the former, especially at 25~\micron. The low predicted mid IR
1137: fluxes can be traced directly to the dust model. As can be seen in Figures
1138: \ref{fig:cc_plots}b \& c, the discrepancy between \dm colors and the data is lessened when
1139: the MW dust model is used. This results from the inclusion of more small graphite grains
1140: and PAH molecules in the MW dust model (\S\ref{sec:dust_model}), which increases the
1141: contribution of transient heating to the mid IR emission (see \S\ref{sec:dis_trans} and
1142: Figures \ref{fig:tr_onoff} \& \ref{fig:sed_mwsmc_comp}). While it is not our intention
1143: with this paper to explore in detail the wide range of systems to which the \dm model can
1144: be applied, including starbursts, these figures are indicative of the diagnostic potential
1145: of properly done, self--consistent UV to far IR radiative transfer simulations. The
1146: apparent deficit of small grains could be alleviated by including a separate, large
1147: population of small graphitic grains in the dust model. However, the absence of a
1148: significant 2175~\AA\ absorption feature in the UV SEDs of many starburst galaxies
1149: \citep{gcw97} makes such a modification of the grain model problematic as the small
1150: graphite grains are responsible for this feature in our dust model. Hence,
1151: self--consistently reproducing the SEDs of starburst galaxies over a wide wavelength
1152: regime may require more complicated grain models, such as a four component model including
1153: amorphous carbonaceous grains in addition to the PAH, graphite and silicates (i.e., dust
1154: grain model B). Indeed, using our dust grain Model B with a size distribution appropriate
1155: for the SMC brings the colors of the predicted SED into better agreement with the observed
1156: colors (see Figure \ref{fig:sed_mwsmc_comp}(b)). Such a diagnostic of grain materials may
1157: provide insight into grain processing histories and grain evolution in response to a wide
1158: range of environmental factors (e.g. Gordon \& Clayton, 1998; Misselt et al., 1999;
1159: Clayton et al., 2000a,b). Alternatively, in the case of starbursts, the simplistic
1160: assumptions of a single stellar population and relatively simple global geometries in the
1161: models discussed above will likely need to be modified and more complicated arrangements
1162: considered.
1163:
1164: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1165: %% Figures 8 %%
1166: \begin{figure}
1167: \epsscale{.5}
1168: \plotone{fig8a.eps}
1169: \plotone{fig8b.eps}
1170: \plotone{fig8c.eps}
1171: \caption{IRAS color--color plot for starburst galaxies with various model runs
1172: superposed. The crosses are IRAS data for starburst galaxies from \citet{gcw97} with data in
1173: all four IRAS bands. Dashed and solid lines represent models using MW and SMC type dust
1174: respectively. A sequence of varying physical size models (100, 500, 1000, \& 5000~pc)
1175: is indicated with filled circles. The open circles represent a series of models with varying
1176: optical depths with $\tau_V$=0.5,1.0,10,20. Sequences of varying SFR models are shown
1177: with open diamonds for a DUSTY global geometry \& filled diamonds for a SHELL global
1178: geometry. Star formation rates along the sequences are 1, 10, 50, \& 100
1179: M$_\odot$~yr$^{-1}$. All parameters not varying along a sequence are kept fixed at the values
1180: indicated in column 4 of Table \ref{tbl:model_param}.
1181: \label{fig:cc_plots}}
1182: \epsscale{1}
1183: \end{figure}
1184: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1185:
1186: \subsection{Global Geometry, $\tau _V$, \& Physical Size}
1187: \label{sec:dis_optdep}
1188: Figure \ref{fig:sed_var_tv_cgg} contrasts the behavior of the SHELL and DUSTY geometries
1189: at the same optical depth. We plot the model SEDs for both geometries for two extreme
1190: optical depths, $\tau_V = 1$ and $20$ with all other input parameters set to the values in
1191: column 4 of Table \ref{tbl:model_param}. At a given $\tau_V$, the SHELL geometry absorbs
1192: more energy than the DUSTY geometry since in the SHELL configuration the stars lie inside
1193: all the dust while in the DUSTY configuration the stars are mixed throughout the dust so
1194: energy from stars in the outer parts of the model has a greater chance of escaping the
1195: model space without being absorbed \citep{wg00}. As a result, at a given optical depth,
1196: the IR emission from the SHELL geometry will always peak at shorter wavelengths. In
1197: addition, owing to the temperature structure, the SHELL geometry produces a broader IR
1198: SED. While the dust near the centrally distributed heating sources reaches higher
1199: temperatures in the SHELL geometry, dust in the outlying regions sees fewer high energy
1200: photons and subsequently is heated to lower temperatures. Since heating sources are
1201: distributed throughout the model with the DUSTY geometry, the resulting temperature
1202: distribution is much flatter than in the SHELL case (see Fig
1203: \ref{fig:temp_var_tv_cgg}a,b), resulting in a narrower IR SED.
1204:
1205: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1206: %% Figures 9 %%
1207: \begin{figure}
1208: \plotone{fig9.eps}
1209: \caption{Direct comparison of SHELL and DUSTY geometries at $\tau_V =1$ and
1210: $\tau_V=20$. All other input parameters are fixed at
1211: the values in column 4 of Table \ref{tbl:model_param}.
1212: \label{fig:sed_var_tv_cgg}}
1213: \end{figure}
1214:
1215: %% Figures 10 %%
1216: \begin{figure}
1217: \plottwo{fig10a.eps}{fig10b.eps}
1218: \caption{Comparison of the radial dust temperature (Eq. \ref{eq:dust_temperature})
1219: distribution of graphite grains in SHELL and DUSTY geometries for (a) $\tau_V =1$ and
1220: (b) $\tau_V=20$. All other input parameters are fixed at
1221: the values in column 4 of Table \ref{tbl:model_param} in both figures.
1222: \label{fig:temp_var_tv_cgg}}
1223: \end{figure}
1224: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1225:
1226: For a given physical model size, specifying the input optical depth, $\tau_V$, is
1227: equivalent to specifying the dust mass. The input optical depth is defined as the radial
1228: optical depth that would result were the dusty medium distributed homogeneously in the
1229: model space. For a clumpy dust distribution, the optical depth along a given line of
1230: sight may have a range of values from a small fraction of $\tau_V$ to several times
1231: larger, depending on $f\!\!f$ and $k$, and the effective optical depth will be
1232: significantly reduced with respect to the homogeneous case \citep{wg96,wg00}.
1233:
1234: In Figures \ref{fig:sed_var_tv_cgg} \& \ref{fig:sed_var_tv}a,b, we
1235: show the effects of varying $\tau_V$ on the predicted SED with all other input parameters
1236: kept constant. Figures \ref{fig:sed_var_tv}a \& \ref{fig:sed_var_tv}b show a series of
1237: model calculations with increasing $\tau_V$ for SHELL and DUSTY geometries, respectively.
1238: In both cases, as $\tau_V$ increases, the IR SED broadens and the peak of the IR emission
1239: shifts to longer wavelengths. The shift to longer wavelengths, corresponding to lower
1240: dust temperatures, is a result of higher dust masses with increasing $\tau_V$. So even
1241: though more of the input energy is absorbed as $\tau_V$ increases, there is more dust to
1242: heat and the dust is consequently cooler. The IR SED broadens as a result of the
1243: increasing importance of the lower density medium in absorbing the input energy. For a
1244: constant $f\!\!f$ and $k$, as $\tau_V$ increases, the fraction of energy absorbed in the
1245: low density medium increases. Since the low density medium reaches higher temperatures
1246: than the dense clumps, there is a wider range of dust temperatures for high $\tau_V$ as
1247: compared to the low $\tau_V$ models where most of the energy is absorbed in the dense
1248: clumps (see Figure \ref{fig:temp_var_tvc}). In addition, at high $\tau_V$, the opacity of
1249: the dust is still significant even at mid IR wavelengths and some of the energy emitted
1250: by the dust is re-absorbed and emitted at longer wavelengths, further broadening the IR
1251: SED.
1252:
1253: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1254: %% Figures 11 %%
1255: \begin{figure}
1256: \plottwo{fig11a.eps}{fig11b.eps}
1257: \caption{Dependence of the model SED on variations in the input optical depth, $\tau_V$,
1258: for (a) SHELL and (b) DUSTY global geometries. All other input parameters are fixed at
1259: the values in column 4 of Table \ref{tbl:model_param}.
1260: \label{fig:sed_var_tv}}
1261: \end{figure}
1262:
1263: %% Figure 12 %%
1264: \begin{figure}
1265: \plotone{fig12.eps}
1266: \caption{Size averaged equilibrium dust temperature (Eq. \ref{eq:dust_temperature}) as a
1267: function of radial position. Temperatures in the low and high density model bins
1268: are plotted for two values of the input optical depth. For
1269: clarity, only the temperatures for the graphite grains are shown; results for the
1270: silicate grain component are similar. All other input parameters are fixed at the values
1271: in column 4 of Table \ref{tbl:model_param}.
1272: \label{fig:temp_var_tvc}}
1273: \end{figure}
1274: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1275:
1276: Along with $\tau_V$, the physical size of the modeled region will determine the total dust
1277: mass of the system and hence affect the predicted IR spectrum from the dust emission.
1278: There is no dependence in the optical to UV spectrum on the system size since the
1279: radiative transfer (and hence total energy absorbed at any point in the model) depends
1280: only on the total optical depth through a given model bin. On the other hand, the dust
1281: mass in a given model bin depends not only on the optical depth, but also the physical
1282: size of the bin; the larger the bin, the higher the dust mass (see Eq.
1283: \ref{eq:dust_mass}). As the temperature an individual dust grain will reach depends on
1284: the ratio of the energy absorbed to the total dust mass, increasing the size of the model
1285: (and hence the size and dust mass of the individual model bins) results in a decrease in
1286: the temperature of individual grains. Therefore, we expect the peak of the infrared
1287: emission to shift to longer wavelengths as we increase the size of the model. We see
1288: exactly this dependence in Figures \ref{fig:var_size_sh}a,b where we plot the predicted
1289: SED for a range of model radii from 100~pc to 5000~pc for both (a) SMC and (b) MW type
1290: dust models. The peak of the IR dust spectrum shifts from $\sim45$\micron\ to
1291: $\sim$200\micron\ over the range of sizes considered. Of particular importance is the
1292: fact that, although the peak shifts to longer wavelengths, the spectrum is not what would
1293: be observed by simply shifting the smaller radius model SED to longer wavelengths. The
1294: larger models still exhibit substantial IR emission at shorter wavelengths from
1295: $\sim$10~\micron\ to $\sim$50~\micron, illustrating the importance of the inclusion of
1296: small, transiently heated grains in the model. The transient heating of the small grains
1297: does not depend on the total energy absorbed. While the equilibrium heating of the dust
1298: results in lower dust temperatures, the temperature excursions experienced by the small
1299: grains (\S\ref{sec:trans}) result in a contribution to IR SED at shorter wavelengths,
1300: characteristic of hotter dust grains. The same behavior is seen for both dust type models
1301: with the only difference being the higher mid--IR emission from the MW type dust resulting
1302: from a larger contribution from small graphite grains to the SED (\S\ref{sec:dis_dust}).
1303:
1304: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1305: %% Figures 13 %%
1306: \begin{figure}
1307: \plottwo{fig13a.eps}
1308: {fig13b.eps}
1309: \caption{Variation of the model SEDs for a range of model sizes for an assumed (a) SMC and
1310: (b) MW dust model. All other input parameters are fixed at
1311: the values in column 4 of Table \ref{tbl:model_param}. \label{fig:var_size_sh} }
1312: \end{figure}
1313: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1314:
1315: The input parameters that determine the dust mass in a given model are the physical size,
1316: $\tau_V$, the dust grain model (MW, LMC, SMC), and the global geometry. The clumpiness of
1317: the local dust distribution leads to statistical fluctuations in the total mass, but on
1318: average the mass of models with different $f\!\!f$ and $k$ remains the same \citep{wg96}.
1319: The remaining input parameters pertain to the input stellar population and do not affect
1320: the dust mass. In Figure \ref{fig:dust_mass}, we plot the dependence of the total model
1321: dust mass on (a) $\tau_V$ and (b) physical size for the SHELL and DUSTY geometries.
1322:
1323: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1324: %% Figures 14 %%
1325: \begin{figure}
1326: \plottwo{fig14a.eps}
1327: {fig14b.eps}
1328: \caption{Dependence of the total model dust mass on (a) the physical size and (b) $\tau_V$
1329: for both DUSTY and SHELL geometries. In (a) $\tau_V$ is kept constant at 10 while in
1330: (b), the physical size is kept constant at 1000~pc. All other model parameters are
1331: fixed at the values in Column 4 of Table \ref{tbl:model_param}.
1332: \label{fig:dust_mass}}
1333: \end{figure}
1334: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1335:
1336: \subsection{Age and Star Formation Rate}
1337: \label{sec:dis_age}
1338: The application of the \dm model to starburst galaxies requires the specification of the
1339: stellar content of the galaxy along with its star formation history. In general, the star
1340: formation history can be characterized by either a burst scenario, wherein all the stars
1341: form at once and subsequently evolve, or by a constant star formation scenario, wherein
1342: stars form continuously as the starburst ages. While the situation in real starburst
1343: galaxies is likely somewhere in between, for the purpose of illustrating the \dm model, we
1344: consider only the constant star formation scenario. For this scenario, an increase in
1345: either age or star formation rates will lead to an increase in the total mass of the
1346: starburst. Increasing the age of the starburst while keeping the SFR constant, while
1347: increasing the total stellar mass, results in an increase of the importance of the
1348: contribution of older, less luminous stars to the SED relative to the hot, young stars
1349: which dominate the UV. As the starburst ages, the massive young stars are continuously
1350: replenished and their contribution to the UV SED approaches a constant as an equilibrium
1351: is reached between their formation and evolution. Hence, increasing the mass of the
1352: starburst by increasing its age results in a higher and higher fraction of its energy
1353: being produced in the optical and NIR wavelength regime. The result is a change in the
1354: shape of the input SED as the starburst ages, the UV approaching a constant with the
1355: optical and NIR increasing in importance; see Figure \ref{fig:in_sed_comp}. On the other
1356: hand, increasing the mass of the starburst by increasing the SFR at a constant age has the
1357: effect of simply scaling up the input SED. At a given age, increasing the SFR results in
1358: an increase in the number of old {\em and} young stars and the total emitted energy
1359: increases at all wavelengths. The effects of these variations in the shape and total
1360: luminosity of the input SED on the predicted IR dust emission spectrum are illustrated in
1361: Figures \ref{fig:var_age_sfr}a, \ref{fig:var_age_sfr}b, and \ref{fig:cnsmass_comp}.
1362:
1363: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1364: %% Figures 15 %%
1365: \begin{figure}
1366: \plotone{fig15.eps}
1367: \caption{Sample input SEDs from the PEGASE synthesis models \citep{fr-v97,fr-v00}, for
1368: increasing age at a constant SFR of 1~M$_\odot$~yr$^{-1}$. The total mass of the starburst is
1369: increasing from bottom to top.
1370: \label{fig:in_sed_comp}}
1371: \end{figure}
1372: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1373:
1374: As is seen in Figure \ref{fig:var_age_sfr}b, increasing the SFR rate at a constant age
1375: results in a shift of the peak of the IR emission to shorter wavelengths. Since the
1376: shape of the input SED does not change, but only the total amount of input energy, the
1377: dust absorbs the same fraction of the total energy ($\sim$97\% for the cases plotted here)
1378: and the absorbed energy is distributed between the high and low density clumps in the same
1379: fractions as well. The result is that as the total amount of input energy is increased,
1380: all of the dust is heated to higher temperatures and the IR emission increases and its
1381: peak shifts to shorter wavelengths. Similarly, in the case of increasing age, the total
1382: IR emission from dust increases and the peak of the IR emission also shifts to shorter
1383: wavelengths. However, the effects are much less pronounced (Figure
1384: \ref{fig:var_age_sfr}a). The reason for the smaller effect is three-fold. (1) Since the
1385: stellar population is aging, the same mass of stars produces less energy compared to a
1386: young, high SFR burst. Therefore, increasing the mass of the starburst by increasing its
1387: age results in a much smaller increase in the energy available for absorption in the dust
1388: as compared to increasing the mass by the same amount by increasing the SFR. (2) The input
1389: SED has changed shape so there is a larger contribution to the total input energy at
1390: optical and NIR wavelengths, resulting in less efficient dust absorption since the
1391: efficiency of dust at absorbing and scattering radiation decreases with increasing
1392: wavelength. As a result, energy is less likely to be absorbed and the fraction of the
1393: total energy absorbed by the dust falls from $\sim$97\% to $\sim$83\% for the cases
1394: plotted in Figure \ref{fig:var_age_sfr}a. (3) Also as a result of the decreasing
1395: efficiency of dust absorption, a higher fraction of the total energy is absorbed
1396: in high density bins with increasing starburst age. Since the low density medium is
1397: heated to a higher temperature for a given input energy, the shift to increasing
1398: importance of the high density clumps results in a smaller overall temperature increase,
1399: and hence less of a shift in the peak of the dust emission to shorter wavelengths, than
1400: would be the case if the relative fraction of energy absorbed in the high and low density
1401: media remained constant. For the cases plotted in Figure \ref{fig:var_age_sfr}a, the
1402: fraction of the energy absorbed in the high density clumps increases from $\sim$68\% to
1403: $\sim$82\% for the starburst ages considered.
1404:
1405: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1406: %% Figures 16 %%
1407: \begin{figure}
1408: \plottwo{fig16a.eps}{fig16b.eps}
1409: \caption{Variation of the predicted SED with (a) increasing starburst age for constant SFR
1410: of 1.6~M$_\odot$~yr$^{-1}$ and (b) increasing SFR at a constant burst age of 40~Myr.
1411: All other input model parameters are kept fixed at the values given in column 4 of Table
1412: \ref{tbl:model_param}.
1413: \label{fig:var_age_sfr}}
1414: \end{figure}
1415: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1416:
1417: The difference between the constant SFR rate and the constant age models is illustrated in
1418: Figure \ref{fig:cnsmass_comp}. The solid line represents the SED of a model with a total
1419: stellar mass of $6.4\times10^{7}$~M$_\odot$ (SFR=1.6~M$_\odot$~yr$^{-1}$, age=40~Myr). We
1420: increase the mass of the model to $8\times10^{9}$~M$_\odot$ by increasing the SFR to
1421: 200~M$_\odot$~yr$^{-1}$ keeping the age constant (dashed line) and by keeping the SFR
1422: constant and increasing the age to 5~Gyr (dotted line). Increasing the
1423: age increases the total dust emission by a small fraction and shifts the peak wavelength
1424: of the dust emission slightly to shorter wavelengths. On the other hand, increasing the
1425: SFR dramatically increases the total dust emission and shifts the peak wavelength
1426: significantly.
1427:
1428: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1429: %% Figures 17 %%
1430: \begin{figure}
1431: \plotone{fig17.eps}
1432: \caption{Comparison of predicted model SEDs with same total stellar mass. Solid line,
1433: total stellar mass of $6.4\times10^{7}$~M$_\odot$ with SFR=1.6~M$_\odot$~yr$^{-1}$,
1434: age=40~Myr. The dotted line SED results from increasing the total stellar mass to
1435: $8\times10^{9}$~M$_\odot$ by increasing the starburst age to 5~Gyr while keeping the SFR
1436: constant at 1.6~M$_\odot$~yr$^{-1}$. The dashed line SED is the result of increasing
1437: the total stellar mass to $8\times10^{9}$~M$_\odot$ by increasing the SFR to
1438: 200~M$_\odot$~yr$^{-1}$ while keeping the age constant at 40~Myr. All other input model
1439: parameters are kept fixed at the values given in column 4 of Table
1440: \ref{tbl:model_param}.
1441: \label{fig:cnsmass_comp}}
1442: \end{figure}
1443: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1444:
1445: \section{Conclusion and Summary}
1446: \label{sec:conclusion}
1447:
1448: In this paper and a companion paper \citep{gmwc00}, we have presented the \dm model, a
1449: self-consistent Monte Carlo radiative transfer and dust emission model. The strengths of
1450: \dm include:
1451:
1452: \begin{itemize}
1453: \item Self-consistency. No {\em ad hoc} assumptions about the dust temperature are
1454: made; the dust is heated by the absorption of photons originating from sources
1455: included in the model. The temperature distribution of the dust grains, and hence their
1456: emission spectrum, is calculated self-consistently by keeping track of the energy absorbed
1457: by dust in the Monte Carlo radiative transfer.
1458:
1459: \item Treatment of the heating of and emission from small grains, including the
1460: effects of temperature fluctuations resulting from the absorption of single photons.
1461:
1462: \item The ability to properly treat high optical depth situations. The iterative solution
1463: outlined above, wherein dust self-absorption is considered, permits the treatment of
1464: high optical depth cases, where the optically thin assumption may be violated even at IR
1465: wavelengths.
1466:
1467: \item Properly including the FIR emission from dust in \dm provides additional information
1468: regarding the dust model, the nature of the heating source(s), and the physical size of the
1469: modeled region, not available through UV--NIR modeling alone.
1470:
1471: \item The use of Monte Carlo techniques to solve the radiative transfer equations allows
1472: the treatment of arbitrary dust and heating source distributions as well as
1473: inhomogeneous dust distributions (clumpiness). Though we have concentrated on starburst
1474: galaxies in exploring the parameter space of \dm$\!\!$, it is of general applicability and
1475: can be used to model e.g., dust tori in AGNs and Quasars, circumstellar discs,
1476: individual star forming regions, and reflection nebulae.
1477:
1478: \end{itemize}
1479:
1480: To emphasize this last point, we point out that the fits to any UV--NIR SED are
1481: degenerate; there are in general several possible combinations of geometries, dust models
1482: and heating sources which can provide essentially identical fits to the SED. However, by
1483: examining the IR dust spectrum (total energy emitted by dust, peak wavelength of the IR
1484: emission, the strength of the mid IR emission relative to longer IR wavelengths, and
1485: strength of IR absorption and emission features), some of the degeneracy in the UV--NIR
1486: models can be lifted. Indeed, the FIR dust spectrum provides information on the physical
1487: size of the region not accessible to UV--NIR modeling alone.
1488:
1489: Future papers will detail the application of \dm to interpreting observations of
1490: astrophysical systems including individual starburst galaxies. Improvements to the
1491: current model are also being implemented. We have presented a
1492: fairly simple treatment of the PAH component here; we have not included a means of
1493: varying the relative strengths of the PAH features. Since the strengths of some of the features
1494: depend on the number of hydrogen atoms in the molecule, while others depend on the number
1495: of carbon atoms, the relative strengths can be varied by adjusting the hydrogen coverage,
1496: $x_H$ (see \S\ref{sec:dust_model}). Applications to specific, individual objects will
1497: require this sort of fine tuning as the relative strengths of the MIR emission features
1498: are observed to change from object to object and environment to environment
1499: \citep{cohen+89}. A major area of effort will be in applying \dm in a starburst model
1500: that will include multiple stellar populations and evolutionary effects. This will
1501: require the inclusion of the effects of the interaction between on-going star formation and
1502: dust, including the evolution of the grains due to processing, formation, and destruction
1503: (e.g. Efstathiou, Rowan-Robinson \& Siebenmorgen 2000).
1504:
1505: \acknowledgments The authors wish to thank Eli Dwek for providing the DIRBE and FIRAS data
1506: used in Figure \ref{fig:dust_spectrum_isrf} in a machine readable form and for helpful
1507: discussions. Comments from the referee Dr. Bruce Draine improved the presentation and
1508: clarity. This work has been partially supported by NASA grants NAG5-9203 and NAG5-7933.
1509: KAM gratefully acknowledges financial support from the Louisiana Space Consortium through
1510: NASA grant NGT5-40035 and the National Research Council through the Resident Research
1511: Associateship Program. This research has made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database
1512: (NED; http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu).
1513:
1514: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1515:
1516: \bibitem[Acosta-Pulido et al.(1996)]{ap+96} Acosta-Pulido, J. A. et al. 1996 \aap,
1517: 315, L121
1518:
1519: \bibitem[Allamandola et al.(1989)]{atb89} Allamandola, L. J., Tielens, A. G. G. M., \&
1520: Barker, J. R. 1989, \apjs, 71, 733
1521:
1522: \bibitem[Andriesse(1978)]{a78} Andriesse, C. D. 1978, \aap, 66, 169
1523:
1524: \bibitem[Bianchi et al.(1996)]{m31ext96} Bianchi, L., Clayton, G. C., Bohlin, R. C.,
1525: Hutchings, J. B., \& Massey, P. 1996, \apj, 471, 203
1526:
1527: \bibitem[Bohren \& Huffman(1983)]{bh83} Bohren, C. F., \& Huffman, D. R. 1983, Absorption
1528: and Scattering of Light by Small Particles, (New York:John Wiley \& Sons)
1529:
1530: \bibitem[Boulanger et al.(1988)]{b+88} Boulanger, F., Beichman, C., D\'{e}sert, F. X.,
1531: Helou, G., P\'{e}rault, M., \& Ryter, C. 1988, \apj, 332, 328
1532:
1533: \bibitem[Boulanger \& P\'{e}rault(1988)]{bp88} Boulanger, F., \& P\'{e}rault, M. 1988,
1534: \apj, 330, 964
1535:
1536: \bibitem[Cardelli et al.(1989)]{ccm} Cardelli, J., Clayton, G. C., \& Mathis, J.
1537: 1989, \apj, 345, 245 (CCM)
1538:
1539: \bibitem[Clayton et al.(2000a)]{cwgm00} Clayton, G. C., Wolff, M. J., Gordon, K. D., \&
1540: Misselt, K. A. 2000a, in ASP Conf. Ser. Vol. 196, Thermal emission Spectroscopy and
1541: Analysis of Dust, Disks, and Regoliths, ed. M. L. Sitko, A. L. Sprague, \& D. K. Lynch
1542: (San Francisco: ASP), 41
1543:
1544: \bibitem[Clayton et al.(2000b)]{cgw00} Clatyon, G. C., Gordon, K. D., \& Wolff,
1545: M. J. 2000b, \apjs, In Press (Aug. 2000)
1546:
1547: \bibitem[Cohen et al.(1989)]{cohen+89} Cohen, M. et al. 1989, \apj, 341, 246
1548:
1549: \bibitem[D\'{e}sert et al.(1990)]{dbp90} D\'{e}sert, F.-X., Boulanger, F.,
1550: \& Puget, J. L. 1990, \aap, 237, 215
1551:
1552: %\bibitem[Draine(1989)]{draine89} Draine, B. T. 1989, in IAU Symp. 135,
1553: % Interstellar Dust, ed. L. J. Allamandola, \& A. G. G. M. Tielens (Dordrecht:Kluwer
1554: % Academic Publishers), 313
1555:
1556: \bibitem[Draine \& Anderson(1985)]{da85} Draine, B. T., \& Anderson, N. 1985, \apj, 292,
1557: 494
1558:
1559: \bibitem[Dudley \& Wynn-Williams(1997)]{dw97} Dudley, C. C., \& Wynn-Williams,
1560: C. G. 1997, \apj, 488, 720
1561:
1562: \bibitem[Duley(1989)]{d89} Duley, W. W. 1989, in IAU Symp. 135,
1563: Interstellar Dust, ed. L. J. Allamandola, \& A. G. G. M. Tielens (Dordrecht:Kluwer
1564: Academic Publishers), 141
1565:
1566: \bibitem[Dwek(1986)]{d86} Dwek, E. 1986, \apj, 302, 363
1567:
1568: \bibitem[Dwek et al.(1997)]{d97} Dwek, E. et al. 1997, \apj, 475, 565
1569:
1570: \bibitem[Efstathiou \& Rowan-Robinson(1995)]{err95} Efstathiou, A., \& Rowan-Robinson,
1571: M. \mnras, 273, 649
1572:
1573: \bibitem[Efstathiou et al.(2000)]{errs00} Efstathiou, A., Rowan-Robinson, M., \&
1574: Siebenmorgen, R. 2000, \mnras, 313, 734
1575:
1576: \bibitem[Fioc \& Rocca-Volmerange(1997)]{fr-v97} Fioc, M., \& Rocca-Volmerange, B. 1997,
1577: \aap, 326, 950
1578:
1579: \bibitem[Fioc \& Rocca-Volmerange(2000)]{fr-v00} Fioc, M., \& Rocca-Volmerange, B. 2000,
1580: in preparation
1581:
1582: \bibitem[Gordon et al.(1997)]{gcw97} Gordon, K. D., Calzetti, D., \& Witt,
1583: A. N. 1997, \apj, 487, 625
1584:
1585: \bibitem[Gordon \& Clayton(1998)]{gc98} Gordon, K. D., \& Clayton, G. C. 1998, \apj, 500,
1586: 816
1587:
1588: \bibitem[Gordon et al.(1999)]{ghcrm99} Gordon, K. D., Hanson, M. M., Clayton, G. C.,
1589: Rieke, G. H., \& Misselt, K. A. 1999, \apj, 519, 165
1590:
1591: \bibitem[Gordon et al.(2000)]{gmwc00} Gordon, K. D., Misselt, K. A., Witt, A. N.,
1592: Clayton, G. C., \& Wolff, M. J. 2000, in preparation
1593:
1594: \bibitem[Guhathakurta \& Draine(1989)]{gd89} Guhathakurta, P., \& Draine, B. T. 1989,
1595: \apj, 345, 230
1596:
1597: \bibitem[Heckman et al.(1998)]{hetal98} Heckman, T. M., Robert, C., Leitherer, C,
1598: Garnett, Donal. R., \& van der Rydt, F. 1998, \apj, 503, 646
1599:
1600: \bibitem[Helou(1986)]{h86} Helou, G. 1986, \apj, 311, L33
1601:
1602: \bibitem[Kim, Martin, \& Hendry(1994)]{kmh94} Kim, S.-H., Martin, P. G., \& Hendry, P. D.
1603: 1994, \apj, 422, 164
1604:
1605: \bibitem[Laor \& Draine(1993)]{ld93} Laor, A., \& Draine, B. T. 1993, \apj, 402, 441
1606:
1607: \bibitem[L\'{e}ger \& d'Hendecourt(1988)]{lh88} L\'{e}ger, A., \& D'Hendecourt, L. 1988,
1608: in Dust in the Universe, ed. M. E. Bailey \& D. A. Williams (Cambridge University
1609: Press), p219
1610:
1611: \bibitem[L\'{e}ger et al.(1989)]{lhd89} L\'{e}ger, A., D'Hendecourt, L.,
1612: \& D\'{e}fourneau, D. 1989, \aap, 216, 148
1613:
1614: \bibitem[L\'{e}ger \& Puget(1984)]{lp84} L\'{e}ger, A., \& Puget, J. L. 1984, \aap, 137,
1615: L5
1616:
1617: \bibitem[Manske \& Henning(1998)]{mh98} Manske, V., \& Henning, Th. 1998, \aap, 337, 58
1618:
1619: \bibitem[Martin \& Whittet(1990)]{mw90} Martin, P. G., \& Whittet, D. C. B. 1990, \apj,
1620: 357, 113
1621:
1622: \bibitem[Mathis et al.(1983)]{mmp83} Mathis, J. S., Mezger, P. G., \&
1623: Panagia, N. 1983, \aap, 128, 212
1624:
1625: \bibitem[Mathis et al.(1977)]{mrn} Mathis, J. S., Rumpl, W., \& Nordsieck, K. H. 1977,
1626: \apj, 217, 425 (MRN)
1627:
1628: \bibitem[Misselt et al.(1999)]{mcg99} Misselt, K. A., Clayton, G. C., \&
1629: Gordon, K. D. 1999, \apj, 515, 129
1630:
1631: \bibitem[Puget \& L\'{e}ger(1989)]{pl89} Puget, J. L., \& L\'{e}ger, A. 1989, \araa, 27,
1632: 161
1633:
1634: \bibitem[Roche et al.(1991)]{r91} Roche, P. F., Aitken, D. K., Smith, C. H., \& Ward,
1635: M. J. 1991, \mnras, 248, 606
1636:
1637: \bibitem[Sakata \& Wada(1989)]{sw89} Sakata, A., \& Wada, S. 1989, in IAU Symp. 135,
1638: Interstellar Dust, ed. L. J. Allamandola, \& A. G. G. M. Tielens (Dordrecht:Kluwer
1639: Academic Publishers), 191
1640:
1641: \bibitem[Salzer et al.(1995)]{setal95} Salzer, J. J., Moody, J. W., Rosenberg, J. L.,
1642: Gregory, S. A., \& Newberry, M. V. 1995, \aj, 109, 2376
1643:
1644: \bibitem[Sauvage et al.(1990)]{stv90} Sauvage, M. Thuan, T. X., \& Vigroux, L. 1990,
1645: \aap, 237, 296
1646:
1647: \bibitem[Sellgren(1984)]{s84} Sellgren, K. 1984, \apj, 277, 623
1648:
1649: \bibitem[Sellgren et al.(1985)]{s+85} Sellgren, K., Allamandola, L. J., Bregman, J. D.,
1650: Werner, M. W., \& Wooden, D. H. 1985, \apj, 299, 416
1651:
1652: \bibitem[Sellgren, Werner \& Dinerstein(1983)]{swd83} Sellgren, K., Werner, M. W., \& Dinerstein,
1653: H. L. 1983, \apj, 271, 13
1654:
1655: \bibitem[Silva et al.(1998)]{sgbd98} Silva, L., Granato, G. L., Bressan, A., \& Danese,
1656: L. 1998, \apj, 509, 103
1657:
1658: \bibitem[Siebenmorgen et al.(1992)]{skm92} Siebenmorgen, R., Krugel, E., \& Mathis, J.
1659: S. 1992, \aap, 266, 501
1660:
1661: \bibitem[Takagi et al.(1999)]{tav99} Takagi, T., Arimoto, N., \&
1662: Vansevi$\check{c}$ius, V. 1999, \apj, 523, 107
1663:
1664: \bibitem[V\'{a}rosi \& Dwek(1999)]{vd99} V\'{a}rosi, F., \& Dwek, E. 1999, \apj, 523,
1665: 265
1666:
1667: \bibitem[Weingartner \& Draine(2000)]{wd00} Weingartner, J. C., \& Draine, B. T. 2000,
1668: astro-ph/9907251, submitted to \apj
1669:
1670: \bibitem[Whittet(1992)]{w92} Whittet, D. C. B. 1992, Dust in the Galactic Environment,
1671: (Bristol:IOP Publishing)
1672:
1673: \bibitem[Witt \& Gordon(1996)]{wg96} Witt, A. N., \& Gordon, K. D. 1996, \apj, 463, 681
1674:
1675: \bibitem[Witt \& Gordon(2000)]{wg00} Witt, A. N., \& Gordon, K. D. 2000, \apj, 528, 779
1676:
1677: \bibitem[Witt et al.(1992)]{wtc92} Witt, A. N., Thronson, H. A., \&
1678: Capuano, J. M. 1992, \apj, 393, 611
1679:
1680: \bibitem[Wolff et al.(2001)]{wolff+01} Wolff, M. J. et al. 2001, in preparation.
1681:
1682: \bibitem[Wolff, Henning \& Stecklum(1999)]{whs99} Wolf, S., Henning, Th., \& Stecklum,
1683: B. 1999, \aap, 349, 839
1684:
1685: %\bibitem[Wolff et. al. (2000)]{w+00} Wolff, M. J., Clayton, G. C., 2000, \apj, ?, ?
1686:
1687: \bibitem[Zubko et al.(1996)]{zmcb96} Zubko, V. G., Mennella, V., Colangeli, L., \&
1688: Bussoletti, E. 1996, \mnras, 282, 1321.
1689:
1690: \end{thebibliography}
1691:
1692: \end{document}
1693: