1: % aa.dem
2: % AA vers. 5.2, LaTeX class for Astronomy & Astrophysics
3: % demonstration file
4: % (c) Springer-Verlag HD
5: % revised by EDP Sciences
6: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------
7: %
8: %\documentclass[referee]{aa} % for a referee version
9: %
10: \documentclass[twocolumn]{aa}
11: \usepackage{graphicx}
12: \usepackage{natbib}
13: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
14: %%%\usepackage{txfonts} aws
15: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
16: %
17: \def\gray {$\gamma$-ray\ }
18: \def\grays{$\gamma$-rays\ }
19: \def\grayse{$\gamma$-rays}
20:
21: \def\piodecay{$\pi^0$-decay\ }
22: \def\EB{EGRB\ }
23: \def\Xco{$X_{\rm CO}$}
24: \def\Xcounits{$10^{20}$~molecules~cm$^{-2}$/~(K km s$^{-1}$)\ }
25: \def\Xcounitsa{molecules~cm$^{-2}$/~(K km s$^{-1}$)\ }
26:
27: \def\deg{^\circ}
28: \def\intensityunits{10$^{-6}$~cm$^{-2}$~sr$^{-1}$~s$^{-1}$\ }
29: \def\regionA{$330\deg<l<30\deg, |b|<5\deg$\ }
30: \def\regionB{$30\deg<l<330\deg, |b|<5\deg$\ }
31: \def\regionC{$90\deg<l<270\deg, |b|<10\deg$\ }
32: \def\regionD{$360\deg<l<0\deg,10\deg<|b|<20\deg$\ }
33: \def\regionE{$360\deg<l<0\deg,20\deg<|b|<60\deg$\ }
34: \def\regionF{$360\deg<l<0\deg,60\deg<|b|<90\deg$\ }
35: \def\regionG{$360\deg<l<0\deg,10\deg<|b|<90\deg$\ }
36: \def\regionH{$300\deg<l<60\deg, |b|<10\deg$\ }
37:
38: \def\spidiffit{{\it spidiffit\ }}
39: \def\fha{48mm}%48
40: \def\fhb{56mm}%61
41:
42: %
43: \begin{document}
44: %
45: \title{The distribution of cosmic-ray sources in the Galaxy,
46: \grays and the gradient in the CO-to-H$_2$ relation }
47:
48: \subtitle{ }
49:
50: \author{A. W. Strong\inst{1},
51: I. V. Moskalenko \inst{2,3},
52: O. Reimer \inst{4},
53: S. Digel \inst{5},
54: \and
55: R. Diehl \inst{1}
56: }
57:
58: \offprints{A. W. Strong, aws@mpe.mpg.de}
59:
60: \institute{ Max-Planck-Institut f\"ur extraterrestrische Physik,
61: Postfach 1312, D-85741 Garching, Germany
62: % \email{aws@mpe.mpg.de,rod@mpe.mpg.de}
63: \and
64: NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center, Code 661, Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA
65: \and
66: Joint Center for Astrophysics, University of Maryland, Baltimore County,
67: Baltimore, MD 21250, USA
68: \and
69: Ruhr-Universit\"at Bochum, D-44780 Bochum, Germany
70: \and
71: W.W. Hansen Experimental Physics Laboratory, Stanford University,
72: Stanford, CA 94305, USA
73: }
74:
75: \date{Received / Accepted }
76:
77:
78: \abstract{
79: We present a solution to the apparent discrepancy between the radial
80: gradient in the diffuse Galactic \gray emissivity and the
81: distribution of supernova remnants, believed to be the sources of
82: cosmic rays. Recent determinations of the pulsar distribution have
83: made the discrepancy even more apparent. The problem is shown to be
84: plausibly solved by a variation in the $W_{\rm CO}$-to-$N$(H$_2$) scaling factor.
85: If this factor increases by a factor of 5--10 from the inner to the
86: outer Galaxy, as expected from the Galactic metallicity gradient,
87: we show that the source distribution
88: required to match the radial gradient of \grays can be reconciled with
89: the distribution of supernova remnants as traced by current studies of
90: pulsars. The resulting model fits the EGRET \gray profiles
91: extremely well in longitude, and reproduces the mid-latitude inner
92: Galaxy intensities better than previous models.
93:
94: \keywords{gamma rays -- Galactic structure -- interstellar medium --
95: cosmic rays -- supernova remnants -- pulsars
96: }
97: }
98: \titlerunning{Distribution of cosmic ray sources in the Galaxy}
99: \authorrunning{Strong A.W. et al.}
100: \maketitle
101: %
102: %________________________________________________________________
103:
104: \section{Introduction}
105:
106: The puzzle of the Galactic \gray gradient goes back to the time of the COS-B
107: satellite \citep{bloemen86,strong88}; using HI and CO surveys to trace the atomic and
108: molecular gas, the Galactic distribution of emissivity per H atom is a
109: measure of the cosmic-ray (CR) flux, for the gas-related bremsstrahlung and
110: pion-decay components. However the gradient determined in this way is much
111: smaller than expected if supernova remnants (SNR) are the sources of cosmic
112: rays, as is generally believed. This discrepancy was confirmed with the
113: much more precise data from EGRET on the COMPTON Gamma Ray Observatory,
114: even allowing for the fact that inverse-Compton emission (unrelated to
115: the gas) is more important than originally supposed \citep{SMR00}.
116: A possible explanation of the small gradient in terms of CR propagation,
117: involving radial variations of a Galactic wind, was recently put forward by
118: \citet{breitschwerdt02}.
119:
120: However the derivation of the Galactic distribution of SNR,
121: commonly based on radio surveys, is subject to large
122: observational selection effects, so that it can be argued that the
123: discrepancy is not so serious. But other tracers of the distribution
124: of SNR are available, in particular pulsars; the new sensitive Parkes
125: Multibeam survey with 914 pulsars has been used by \citet{lorimer04}
126: to derive the Galactic distribution, and this confirms the
127: concentration to the inner Galaxy. Fig.~\ref{fig1} compares the
128: pulsar distribution from \citet{lorimer04} with a CR source
129: distribution which fits the EGRET \gray data \citep{SMR00}. If the
130: pulsar distribution indeed traces the SNR, then there is a serious
131: discrepancy with \grayse. The distribution of SNR given by
132: \citet{case98} is not so peaked, but the number of known SNR is much
133: less than the number of pulsars and the systematic effects very
134: difficult to account for \citep{green96}. But even this flatter
135: distribution is hard to reconcile with that required for \grayse.
136: Another, quite independent, tracer of the SNR distribution is the
137: 1809 keV line of $^{26}$Al; whether this originates mainly in type II
138: supernovae or masssive stars is not important in this context, since
139: both trace star-formation/SNR. The COMPTEL $^{26}$Al maps
140: \citep{knodlseder99,pluschke01} show that the emission is very
141: concentrated to the inner radian of the Galaxy. The density of free
142: electrons shows a similar distribution \citep{cordeslazio03}. The
143: $^{26}$Al measurements are not subject to the selection effects of
144: other methods; although they have their own uncertainties, they
145: support the type of distribution which we adopt in this paper.
146:
147: %-----------------------------------------------------------
148: \begin{figure}
149: % \centering \includegraphics[width=65mm,height=60mm]{fig1.ps}
150: \centering \includegraphics[width=0.99\linewidth,height=\fha]{fig1.ps}
151: \caption{CR source density as function of Galactocentric
152: radius $R$. Dotted: as used in \citet{SMR00}, solid line:based on
153: pulsars \citep{lorimer04} as used in this work, vertical bars: SNR
154: data points from \citet{case98}. Distributions are normalized at $R =
155: 8.5$ kpc.} \label{fig1}
156: \end{figure}
157: %______________________________________________________________
158:
159: A major uncertainty in the models of diffuse Galactic \gray emission
160: is the distribution of molecular hydrogen, as traced by the
161: integrated intensity of the $J$ = 1--0 transition of $^{12}$CO,
162: $W_{\rm CO}$. Gamma-ray analyses have in fact provided one of the
163: standard values for the scaling factor\footnote{units: \Xcounitsa}
164: \Xco = $N(H_2)/W_{\rm CO}$; with only the assumption that cosmic rays
165: penetrate molecular clouds freely, the \gray values are free of the
166: uncertainties of other methods (e.g. those based on the assumption of
167: molecular cloud
168: virialization). However previous analyses, e.g.
169: \citet{strongmattox96}, \citet{hunter97}, \citet{SMR00}, have usually assumed that
170: \Xco\ is independent of Galactocentric radius $R$, since otherwise the
171: model has too many free parameters. But there is now good reason to
172: believe that \Xco\ increases with $R$, both from COBE/DIRBE studies
173: \citep{sodroski95,sodroski97} and from the measurement of a Galactic
174: metallicity gradient combined with the strong inverse dependence of
175: \Xco\ on metallicity in external galaxies \citep{israel97,israel00}.
176: A rather rapid radial variation of \Xco\ is expected, based on a
177: gradient in [O/H] of 0.04--0.07 dex/kpc
178: \citep{hou00,deharveng00,rolleston00,smartt01,andrievsky02} and the
179: dependence of \Xco\ on metallicity in external galaxies: $\log$
180: \Xco$\propto -2.5$ [O/H] \citep{israel97,israel00}, giving \Xco
181: $\propto 10^{(-0.14\pm0.04)R}$, amounting to a factor 1.3--1.5 per
182: kpc, or an order of magnitude between the inner and outer Galaxy.
183: \footnote{The values given by \citet{israel97,israel00} include the
184: effects of the radiation field, implicitly containing the radiation
185: field/metallicity correlation of his galaxy sample. \Xco\ is
186: positively and almost linearly correlated with radiation field, so the
187: dependence of \Xco\ for constant radiation field is even larger: $\log$
188: \Xco$\propto -4$ [O/H] \citep{israel00}. By adopting the coefficient
189: --2.5 we implicitly assume the same radiation/metallicity correlation
190: within the Galaxy as over his galaxy sample.} A less rapid
191: dependence, $\log$ \Xco$\propto$--1.0 [O/H], was found by
192: \citet{boselli02}, which however still implies a significant \Xco($R$)
193: variation. \citet{boissier03} also combine the metallicity gradient
194: with \Xco$(Z)$ within individual galaxies, to obtain radial profiles
195: of H$_2$, and give arguments for the validity of this procedure.
196: \citet{digel90} found that molecular clouds in the outer Galaxy
197: ($R$$\sim$12 kpc) are underluminous in CO, with \Xco\ a factor 4$\pm$2
198: times the inner Galaxy value. \citet{sodroski95,sodroski97} derived a
199: similar variation ($\log$\Xco/10$^{20} = 0.12R - 0.34$) when modelling
200: dust emission for COBE data. \citet{pak98} predicted the physical origin for a variation of \Xco\ with Z. \citet{papadopoulos02}
201: and \citet{papadopoulos04} discuss the physical state of this metal-poor gas phase
202: in the outer parts of spiral galaxies (relatively warm and diffuse). Observations of H$_2$ line emission from NGC~891
203: with ISO \citep{valentijn99} indicate a massive cool molecular
204: component in the outer regions of this galaxy, supporting the trend
205: found in our Galaxy.
206:
207: %-----------------------------------------------------------
208: \begin{figure}
209: \centering
210: \includegraphics[width=0.99\linewidth,height=\fha]{fig2.ps}
211: \caption{\Xco\ as function of $R$.
212: Dotted horizontal line, black: as used in \citet{strongmattox96,SMR00};
213: solid line, black: as used for \grays in this work;
214: dashed, dark blue: from \citet{sodroski95};
215: dash-dot, red: using metallicity gradient as described in the text,
216: \Xco$\propto Z^{-2.5}$ \citep{israel00}, two lines
217: for [O/H] = 0.04 and 0.07 dex/kpc;
218: dash-dot-dot,light blue: using \Xco$\propto Z^{-1.0}$ \citep{boselli02}
219: and [O/H] = 0.07 dex/kpc.
220: The values using metallicity are normalized approximately to those
221: from the \gray analysis.} \label{fig2}
222: \end{figure}
223: %______________________________________________________________
224:
225: Fig.~\ref{fig2} illustrates some of the possible \Xco\ variations
226: implied by these studies. For the cases where metallicity is used to
227: estimate \Xco, the values are normalized approximately to the
228: values used in the present \gray analysis, since we are only
229: interested in comparing the variations of \Xco. From the viewpoint of
230: \grayse, the effect of a steeper CR source distribution is
231: compensated by the increase of \Xco. Thus we might expect to resolve
232: the apparent discrepancy in the source distribution, and improve our
233: understanding of the Galactic \gray emission. In this paper we
234: investigate quantitatively this possibility. Note that the \grays
235: include major contributions from interactions with atomic hydrogen
236: and from inverse Compton scattering, both of which are independent of
237: \Xco; this means that the \Xco\ variation has to be quite large to
238: have a significant effect.
239:
240: %-----------------------------------------------------------------
241: \section{Data}
242:
243: The EGRET and COMPTEL data are the same as described in
244: \citet{SMR00,SMR04a}. The EGRET data consist of the standard product
245: counts and exposure for 30 MeV -- 10 GeV, augmented with data for 10--120
246: GeV. The \gray point sources in the 3EG catalogue have been
247: removed as described in \citet{SMR00}. The HI and CO data are as
248: described in \citet{moskalenko02} and \citet{SMR04a}; they consist of combined
249: surveys divided into 8 Galactocentric rings on the basis of kinematic
250: information. Full details of the procedures for comparing models with
251: data are given in \citet{SMR04a} to which the reader is referred.
252:
253: %-----------------------------------------------------------
254: \begin{figure}
255: \centering
256: \includegraphics[width=0.99\linewidth,height=\fhb]{fig3.ps}
257: \caption{Longitude profile of \grays for 1000--2000 MeV, averaged over
258: $|b|<5.5\deg$.
259: Vertical bars: EGRET data; lines are model components convolved with the EGRET
260: point-spread function:
261: green: inverse Compton emission, red: $\pi^0$-decay, light blue: bremsstrahlung,
262: dark blue: total.} \label{fig3}
263: \end{figure}
264: %______________________________________________________________
265:
266: %----------------------------------------------------------------------
267: \section{Model and Method}
268: We use the GALPROP program \citep{SMR00,SMR04a} to compute the models.
269: GALPROP was extended to allow a variable \Xco($R$) to be input. The
270: distribution of CR sources is assumed to follow that of
271: pulsars in the form given by \citet{lorimer04}, as shown in
272: Fig.~\ref{fig1}. The other parameters, in particular the CR
273: nucleon and electron injection spectral shape and propagation
274: parameters, are taken from the ``optimized model'' of
275: \citet{SMR04a}. As before the halo height is taken as $z_h$ = 4 kpc,
276: and the maximum radius $R$ = 20 kpc. The isotropic background is as
277: derived in \citet{SMR04b}. Since in this work we simply wish to
278: demonstrate the possibility to obtain a plausible solution, we adopt a
279: heuristic approach, adjusting \Xco($R$) to obtain a satisfactory
280: solution as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig2}. The electron flux has been
281: scaled down by a factor 0.7 relative to \citet{SMR04a} to obtain an
282: optimal fit.
283:
284: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
285: \section{Results}
286: Figs.~\ref{fig3} and \ref{fig4} show the longitude and latitude
287: distributions for 1--2 GeV, compared to EGRET data. A rather rapid
288: variation of \Xco\ is required to compensate the CR source gradient,
289: but it is fully compatible with the expected variation based on
290: metallicity gradients and the COBE result, as described in the
291: Introduction. The longitude and latitude fits are good except in the
292: outer Galaxy where the prediction is rather low. One possible reason
293: for this is that the CR source density does not fall off so fast
294: beyond the Solar circle as given by the adopted pulsar distribution,
295: which has an exponential decay. Another possibility could be even
296: larger amounts of H$_2$ in the outer Galaxy than we have assumed (see
297: discussion in Introduction). We have chosen the range 1--2 GeV for
298: the profiles since this is where the gas contribution and hence the
299: effect of \Xco\ is maximal. An exhaustive comparison of profiles in
300: all energy ranges is beyond the scope of this Letter, but in fact the
301: agreement is good at all energies. The larger CR gradient in this
302: model has another consequence: the predicted inverse-Compton emission
303: in the inner Galaxy is more intense at intermediate latitudes where
304: the interstellar radiation field is still high; this is precisely the
305: region where previous models \citep{hunter97,SMR00,SMR04a} have had
306: problems to reproduce the EGRET data. Fig.~\ref{fig5} shows the model
307: spectrum of the inner Galaxy compared with EGRET data; the fit is
308: similar to that of models \citep{SMR04a} with {\it ad hoc} source
309: gradient and constant \Xco. The prediction is rather high above 20
310: GeV, however the EGRET data are least certain in this range
311: \citep{SMR04a}.
312:
313: %-----------------------------------------------------------
314: \begin{figure}
315: \centering
316: \includegraphics[width=0.99\linewidth,height=\fhb]{fig4.ps}
317: \caption{Latitude profile of \grays for 1000--2000 MeV, averaged over
318: $330\deg<l<30\deg$. Data and curves as in Fig.~\ref{fig3}.
319: The extragalactic background is shown as a black horizontal line. } \label{fig4}
320: \end{figure}
321: %______________________________________________________________
322:
323:
324: %------------------------------------------------------------------------------
325: \section{Discussion}
326: We have shown that a good fit to the EGRET data is obtained with the
327: particular combination of parameters chosen. We can however ask
328: whether the pulsar source distribution combined with a constant \Xco\
329: could also give a good fit if we reduce the CR electron intensity, to
330: supress the inner Galaxy peak from inverse Compton emission. This can
331: indeed reproduce the longitude profile in the inner Galaxy, but fails
332: badly to account for the latitude distribution, since it has a large
333: deficit at intermediate latitudes. Some variation of \Xco\ is
334: therefore required. The suggested variation of \Xco\ would have
335: significant impact on the Galactic H$_2$ mass and distribution.
336: Warm molecular hydrogen in the outer parts of spiral galaxies that is
337: not traced by CO emission may be detectable by the Spitzer
338: observatory in 28 $\mu$m vibrational emission. These issues will be
339: addressed in future work.
340:
341: %-----------------------------------------------------------
342: \begin{figure}
343: \centering
344: \includegraphics[width=0.99\linewidth,height=\fhb]{fig5.ps}
345: \caption{Spectrum of inner Galaxy, $330\deg<l<30\deg, |b|<5.5\deg$.
346: Vertical bars: EGRET data (red), COMPTEL data (green).
347: Curves: predicted intensities; inverse Compton (green),
348: $\pi^0$-decay (red), bremsstrahlung (light blue), extragalactic background
349: (black), total (dark blue). } \label{fig5}
350: \end{figure}
351: %______________________________________________________________
352:
353: %------------------------------------------------------------------------------
354: \section{Conclusions}
355: Two {\it a priori} motivated developments allow us to obtain a more
356: physically plausible model for Galactic \grayse, simultaneously
357: allowing a CR source distribution similar to SNR as traced by pulsars
358: and an expected variation in the $W_{\rm CO}$-to-$N$(H$_2$) conversion
359: factor. Obviously the uncertainty in both the source distribution and
360: \Xco\ are large so our solution is far from unique, but it
361: demonstrates the possibility to obtain a physically-motivated model
362: without resorting to an {\it ad hoc} source distribution. This result
363: supports the SNR origin of CR. The resulting model also gives
364: improved predictions for \grays in the inner Galaxy at mid-latitudes.
365: We have therefore achieved a step towards a better understanding of
366: the diffuse Galactic \gray emission. This result is important input
367: to the development of models for the upcoming GLAST mission. This
368: Letter is intended only to point out the potential importance of the
369: effect. The next step will be a more quantitative analysis to derive
370: \Xco($R$) from the \gray data themselves.
371:
372: %______________________________________________________________
373: \begin{acknowledgements}
374: We thank F.~Israel and D.~Lorimer and the referee for useful discussions.
375: I.V.M.\ acknowledges partial support from a NASA Astrophysics Theory Program
376: grant, O.R.\ acknowledges
377: support from the BMBF through DLR grant QV0002.
378:
379: %of his \Xco - metallicity relation to the Galaxy.
380: % and D. Lorimer for
381: %discussion of the pulsar distribution.
382: %We thank the referee for pointing out additional relevant material
383: %and implications of this work, in particular the relevance for the
384: %Spitzer observatory.
385:
386: \end{acknowledgements}
387:
388:
389: %%%%%%%
390:
391: \begin{thebibliography}{}
392:
393: \bibitem[Andrievsky et al.(2002)]{andrievsky02}
394: Andrievsky, S. M., Bersier, D., Kovtyukh, V. V., et al. 2002, A\&A, 384, 140
395:
396: \bibitem[Boissier et al.(2003)]{boissier03}
397: Boissier, S., Prantzos, N., Boselli, A., \& Gavazzi, G. 2003,
398: MNRAS, 346, 1215
399:
400: \bibitem[Bloemen et al.(1986)]{bloemen86}
401: Bloemen, J. B. G. M., Strong, A. W., Mayer-Hasselwander, H. A., et al. 1986,
402: A\&A, 154, 25
403:
404: \bibitem[Breitschwerdt et al.(2002)]{breitschwerdt02}
405: Breitschwerdt, D., Dogiel, V. A., \& V\"olk, H. J. 2002, A\&A, 385, 216
406:
407: \bibitem[Boselli et al.(2002)]{boselli02}
408: Boselli, A., Lequeux, J., \& Gavazzi, G. 2002, A\&A, 384, 33
409:
410: \bibitem[Case \& Bhattacharya(1998)]{case98}
411: Case, G. L., \& Bhattacharya, D. 1998, ApJ, 504, 761
412:
413: \bibitem[Cordes \& Lazio(2003)]{cordeslazio03}
414: Cordes, J. M., \& Lazio, T. J. W. 2003, astro-ph/0207156
415:
416: \bibitem[Deharveng et al.(2000)]{deharveng00}
417: Deharveng, L., Pena, M., Caplan, J., \& Costero, R. 2000, MNRAS 311, 329
418:
419: \bibitem[Digel et al.(1990)]{digel90}
420: Digel, S., Bally, J., \& Thaddeus, P. 1990, ApJ, 357, L29
421:
422: \bibitem[Green(1996)]{green96}
423: Green, D. A. 1996, in Supernovae and Supernova Remnants,
424: IAU Coll.\ 145, R.~McCray and Z.~Wang (eds),
425: Cambridge University Press, p.341
426:
427: \bibitem[Hou et al.(2000)]{hou00}
428: Hou, J. L., Prantzos, N., \& Boissier, S. 2000, A\&A 362, 921
429:
430: \bibitem[Hunter et al.(1997)]{hunter97}
431: Hunter, S. D., Bertsch, D. L., Dingus, B.L., et al. 1997, ApJ, 481, 205
432:
433: \bibitem[Kn\"odlseder et al.(1999)]{knodlseder99}
434: Kn\"odlseder, J., Dixon, D. D., Bennett, K., et al. 1999, A\&A 344, 68
435:
436: \bibitem[Israel(1997)]{israel97}
437: Israel, F. P. 1997, A\&A, 328, 471
438:
439: \bibitem[Israel(2000)]{israel00}
440: Israel, F. P. 2000, in Molecular Hydrogen in Space, F.\ Combes and G.\
441: Pineau des For\^ets (eds), p.293
442:
443: \bibitem[Lorimer(2004)]{lorimer04}
444: Lorimer, D. R. 2004, in Young Neutron Stars and Their Environments, IAU Symp.\ 218,
445: F.\ Camilo and B.\ M.\ Gaensler (eds), astro-ph/0308501
446:
447: \bibitem[Moskalenko et al.(2002)]{moskalenko02}
448: Moskalenko, I. V., Strong, A. W., Ormes, J. F., \& Potgieter, M. S. 2002, ApJ, 565, 280
449:
450: \bibitem[Papadopoulos et al.(2002)]{papadopoulos02}
451: Papadopoulos, P. P., Thi, W.-F., \& Viti, S. 2002, ApJ, 579, 270 %(erratum 583, 524)
452:
453: \bibitem[Papadopoulos(2004)]{papadopoulos04}
454: Papadopoulos, P. P. 2004, in The Neutral ISM in Starburst Galaxies,
455: PASP Conf.\ Series, in press, astro-ph/0403087
456:
457: \bibitem[Pak et al.(1998)]{pak98}
458: Pak, S., Jaffe, D. T., van Dishoeck, E. F., Johansson, L. E. B.,
459: Ewine, F. \& Booth, R. S. 1998, ApJ, 498, 735
460:
461: \bibitem[Pl\"uschke et al.(2001)]{pluschke01}
462: Pl\"uschke, S., Diehl, R., Sch\"onfelder, V., et al. 2001, ESA SP--459, 55
463:
464: \bibitem[Rolleston et al.(2000)]{rolleston00}
465: Rolleston, W. R. J., Smartt, S. J., Dufton, P. L., \& Ryans, R. S. I. 2000,
466: A\&A, 363, 537
467:
468: \bibitem[Sodroski et al.(1995)]{sodroski95}
469: Sodroski, T. J., Odegard, T. J., Dwek, E., et al. 1995, ApJ, 452, 262
470:
471: \bibitem[Sodroski et al.(1997)]{sodroski97}
472: Sodroski, T. J., Odegard, N., Arendt, R., et al. 1997, ApJ, 480, 173
473:
474: \bibitem[Smartt(2001)]{smartt01}
475: Smartt, S. J., Venn, K. A., Dufton, P. L., Lennon, D. J.,
476: Rolleston, W. R. J., \& Keenan, F. P. 2001, A\&A, 367, 86
477:
478: \bibitem[Strong et al.(1988)]{strong88}
479: Strong, A. W., Bloemen, J. B. G. M., Dame, T. M., et al. 1988, A\&A, 207, 1
480:
481: \bibitem[Strong \& Mattox(1996)]{strongmattox96}
482: Strong, A. W., \& Mattox, J. R. 1996, A\&A, 308, L21
483:
484: \bibitem[Strong et al.(2000)]{SMR00}
485: Strong, A. W., Moskalenko, I. V., \& Reimer, O. 2000, ApJ, 537, 763
486:
487: \bibitem[Strong et al.(2004a)]{SMR04a}
488: Strong, A. W., Moskalenko, I. V., \& Reimer, O. 2004a, submitted to ApJ
489:
490: \bibitem[Strong et al.(2004b)]{SMR04b}
491: Strong, A. W., Moskalenko, I. V., \& Reimer, O. 2004b, submitted to ApJ
492:
493: \bibitem[Valentijn \& van der Werf(1999)]{valentijn99}
494: Valentijn, E. A. \& van der Werf, P. P. 1999, ApJ, 522, L29
495:
496: \end{thebibliography}
497: \end{document}
498: