1: % Mrk 421 XMM paper
2:
3:
4: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
5:
6: %% preprint produces a one-column, single-spaced document:
7:
8: % \documentclass[preprint]{aastex}
9:
10: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
11:
12: % \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
13: %\input{psfig}
14:
15: %% If you want to create your own macros, you can do so
16: %% using \newcommand. Your macros should appear before
17: %% the \begin{document} command.
18: %%
19: %% If you are submitting to a journal that translates manuscripts
20: %% into SGML, you need to follow certain guidelines when preparing
21: %% your macros. See the AASTeX v5.0 Author Guide
22: %% for information.
23:
24: %\newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}
25: %\newcommand{\myemail}{skywalker@galaxy.far.far.away}
26: \def\hi{\ifmmode {\rm H}\,{\sc i}~ \else H\,{\sc i}~\fi}
27: \def\kms{\rm\,km\,s^{-1}}
28: \def\hubunits{\rm\,km\,s^{-1}\,Mpc^{-1}}
29: \def\K{\,{\rm K}}
30: \def\cm{{\rm cm}}
31: \def\chandra {{\it Chandra}}
32: \def\xmm {{\it XMM}}
33: \def\xmmnewton {{\it XMM--Newton}}
34: \def\fuse {{\it FUSE}}
35: \def\cvi {\ion{C}{6}}
36: \def\nvi {\ion{N}{6}}
37: \def\neix {\ion{Ne}{9}}
38: \def\nvii {\ion{N}{7}}
39: \def\nvi {\ion{N}{6}}
40: \def\ovi {\ion{O}{6}}
41: \def\ovii {\ion{O}{7}}
42: \def\oviii {\ion{O}{8}}
43: \def\ovihv {\ion{O}{6}$_{\rm HV}$}
44: \def\novi {N_{\rm OVI}}
45: \def\novii {N_{\rm OVII}}
46: \def\noviii {N_{\rm OVIII}}
47:
48: \def\kms {~km~s$^{-1}$}
49:
50:
51: %% You can insert a short comment on the title page using the command below.
52:
53: %\slugcomment{Draft version, \today, to be submitted to ApJL}
54:
55: %% If you wish, you may supply running head information, although
56: %% this information may be modified by the editorial offices.
57: %% The left head contains a list of authors,
58: %% usually a maximum of three (otherwise use et al.). The right
59: %% head is a modified title of up to roughly 44 characters. Running heads
60: %% will not print in the manuscript style.
61:
62: \shorttitle{XMM Observations of Mrk 421}
63: \shortauthors{Williams et al.}
64:
65:
66: %% This is the end of the preamble. Indicate the beginning of the
67: %% paper itself with \begin{document}.
68:
69: %\received{2003 February 25}
70: \begin{document}
71:
72: %% LaTeX will automatically break titles if they run longer than
73: %% one line. However, you may use \\ to force a line break if
74: %% you desire.
75:
76: \title{\boldmath{\it XMM--Newton} View of the $z>0$ Warm--Hot
77: Intergalactic Medium Toward Markarian 421}
78: %\title{I Didn't Want A Job In Europe Anyway}
79:
80: %% Use \author, \affil, and the \and command to format
81: %% author and affiliation information.
82: %% Note that \email has replaced the old \authoremail command
83: %% from AASTeX v4.0. You can use \email to mark an email address
84: %% anywhere in the paper, not just in the front matter.
85: %% As in the title, you can use \\ to force line breaks.
86:
87: \author{Rik J. Williams\altaffilmark{1},
88: Smita Mathur\altaffilmark{1},
89: Fabrizio Nicastro\altaffilmark{2,3,4},
90: Martin Elvis\altaffilmark{2}}
91: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Astronomy, The Ohio State University,
92: 140 West 18th Avenue, Columbus OH 43210, USA}
93: \altaffiltext{2}{Harvard--Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge,
94: MA, 01238, USA}
95: \altaffiltext{3}{Instituto de Astronom\'ia, Universidad Aut\'onomica de
96: M\'exico, Apartado Postal 70-264, Ciudad Universitaria,
97: M\'exico, D.F., CP 04510, M\'exico}
98: \altaffiltext{4}{Osservatorio Astronomico di Roma, Istituto Nazionale di
99: Astrofisica, Italy}
100: \email{williams,smita@astronomy.ohio-state.edu}
101: %% Notice that each of these authors has alternate affiliations, which
102: %% are identified by the \altaffilmark after each name. Specify alternate
103: %% affiliation information with \altaffiltext, with one command per each
104: %% affiliation.
105:
106:
107:
108:
109: %% Mark off your abstract in the ``abstract'' environment. In the manuscript
110: %% style, abstract will output a Received/Accepted line after the
111: %% title and affiliation information. No date will appear since the author
112: %% does not have this information. The dates will be filled in by the
113: %% editorial office after submission.
114:
115: \begin{abstract}
116: The recent detection with \chandra\ of two warm--hot intergalactic
117: medium (WHIM) filaments toward Mrk 421 by Nicastro et al.~provides
118: a measurement of the bulk of the ``missing baryons'' in the
119: nearby universe. Since Mrk 421 is a bright X-ray source, it is also frequently
120: observed by the \xmmnewton\ Reflection Grating Spectrometer (RGS)
121: for calibration purposes. Using all available archived
122: \xmm\ observations of this source with small pointing offsets ($<15$\arcsec), we
123: construct the highest--quality \xmm\ grating spectrum of Mrk 421 to date
124: with a net exposure time (excluding periods of high background flux)
125: of 437~ks and $\sim 15000$ counts per resolution element at 21.6\,\AA,
126: more than twice that of the \chandra\ spectrum. Despite the long exposure
127: time neither of the two intervening
128: absorption systems is seen, though the upper limits derived are
129: consistent with the \chandra\ equivalent width measurements. This
130: appears to result from (1) the larger number of narrow instrumental features
131: caused by bad detector columns, (2)
132: the degraded resolution of XMM/RGS as compared to the \chandra/LETG,
133: and (3) fixed pattern noise at $\lambda \ga 29$\,\AA.
134: The non--detection of the WHIM absorbers by XMM is thus fully consistent
135: with the \chandra\ measurement.
136:
137: \end{abstract}
138:
139: %% Keywords should appear after the \end{abstract} command. The uncommented
140: %% example has been keyed in ApJ style. See the instructions to authors
141: %% for the journal to which you are submitting your paper to determine
142: %% what keyword punctuation is appropriate.
143:
144: \keywords{ intergalactic medium --- X-rays: general --- cosmology:
145: observations }
146:
147:
148: %% From the front matter, we move on to the body of the paper.
149: %% In the first two sections, notice the use of the natbib \citep
150: %% and \citet commands to identify citations. The citations are
151: %% tied to the reference list via symbolic KEYs. The KEY corresponds
152: %% to the KEY in the \bibitem in the reference list below. We have
153: %% chosen the first three characters of the first author's name plus
154: %% the last two numeral of the year of publication as our KEY for
155: %% each reference.
156:
157: \section{Introduction}
158: Most of the baryons that comprise 4\% of the mass--energy budget
159: of the universe are found in the intergalactic medium (IGM), primarily
160: appearing as the Lyman--alpha ``forest'' in high--redshift
161: quasar spectra \citep{weinberg97}. At more recent times ($z\la 2$)
162: the process of structure formation has
163: shock--heated the IGM to temperatures of $\sim 10^{5-7}$\,K, thus
164: rendering the hydrogen nearly fully ionized and producing (at most)
165: broad, extremely weak Lyman--alpha absorption
166: \citep[e.g.][]{sembach04,richter04}. Known as the warm--hot intergalactic
167: medium (WHIM), this phase is predicted to contain roughly half of the
168: baryonic matter at low redshifts \citep{cen99,dave01}. Its extremely low
169: density (typically $\delta\sim 10-100$)
170: precludes the detection of WHIM thermal or line emission with current
171: facilities, so the only way to directly measure these ``missing'' baryons
172: is through far--ultraviolet and X-ray spectroscopic measurements of
173: absorption lines from highly ionized heavy elements
174: \citep{perna98,hellsten98,fangb02}.
175:
176: Several early attempts to detect these intervening WHIM absorbers in X-rays
177: \citep[e.g.][]{fang02,mathur03,mckernan03} and more recent surveys
178: \citep{fang05} yielded only tentative detections
179: at best. Intervening Lyman--alpha \citep{shull96,sembach04} and \ion{O}{6}
180: \citep[e.g.][]{savage02} absorbers had also been seen in \fuse\ and HST
181: quasar spectra, but their ionization states and possible galactic halo origins
182: \citep[e.g.][]{tumlinson05} are quite uncertain. These uncertainties
183: are largely mitigated with the recent detection by
184: \citet{nicastro05a,nicastro05b}
185: of two X-ray absorption systems at $z=0.011$ and $z=0.027$ along the
186: line of sight to the blazar Mrk 421. These filaments account for
187: a critical density fraction of
188: $\Omega_{\rm WHIM}=0.032^{+0.042}_{-0.021}$, fully consistent with the mass
189: of the missing baryons in the local universe (albeit with large
190: uncertainties). While future proposed missions such as \emph{Constellation--X},
191: \emph{XEUS}, or \emph{Pharos} (Nicastro et al., in preparation) will be able to
192: measure $\Omega_{\rm WHIM}$ to far greater precision with
193: detections of numerous weaker X-ray forest lines, the
194: \citet[][hereafter N05]{nicastro05a} results present a key
195: early confirmation of numerical predictions using observational
196: capabilities that are \emph{currently} within our grasp --- hence any
197: test of their correctness is of great importance.
198:
199: Although each of these two absorption systems was detected with high confidence
200: through multiple redshifted X-ray absorption lines, the \emph{individual}
201: absorption lines were generally quite weakly detected, mostly at the
202: $2-4\sigma$ level. Moreover, while they employed high--quality \chandra\
203: and \fuse\ data taken during exceptionally bright outbursts of Mrk 421,
204: the many archived \xmmnewton\ observations of this source
205: were not included in the analysis. With roughly twice the effective
206: area of \chandra/LETG, \xmm/RGS is in principle superior for X-ray
207: grating spectroscopy
208: between $\sim 10-40$\,\AA; however, its slightly worse resolution
209: (approximately 60\,m\AA\ FWHM, versus 50\,m\AA\ for \chandra/LETG), higher
210: susceptibility to background flares, and multitude of narrow instrumental
211: features can present serious complications for WHIM searches.
212:
213: Independent confirmation of the \chandra\ results with a separate
214: instrument like \xmm\ is thus important. While some groups have searched
215: for WHIM features in a limited number of \xmm\ Mrk 421 spectra
216: \citep[e.g.,][]{ravasio05}, a complete and systematic analysis has yet
217: to be performed. Here we present a search for $z>0$ WHIM features employing
218: all ``good'' observations of Mrk 421 available in the \xmm\
219: archive, and a comparison of these results to those presented by N05.
220:
221: \section{Data Reduction and Measurements}
222: We searched the \xmm\ archive for all Mrk 421 Reflection Grating
223: Spectrometer (RGS) data. Although
224: 31 separate observations were available, 16 had pointing offsets
225: $\Delta\theta \ga 60$\arcsec\ while the rest were offset by less than
226: 15\arcsec. Since spectral resolution and calibration quality can degrade at
227: large offsets, we only included
228: those with $\Delta\theta < 15$\arcsec. One extremely short observation
229: (0158971101, with $t_{\rm exp}=237$\,s) was also excluded to simplify the
230: data reduction process. Using the standard \xmm\ Science Analysis System
231: version 6.5.0
232: routines\footnote{See \url{http://xmm.vilspa.esa.es/sas}}, RGS1
233: light curves were built for the remaining
234: 14 ``good'' observations (see Table~\ref{tab_log}), and the spectra were
235: reprocessed to exclude periods of high background levels and coadded.
236: These combined, filtered
237: RGS1 and RGS2 spectra have effective exposure times of $\sim 440$\,ks and
238: over $9\times 10^6$
239: combined RGS1$+$RGS2 first--order counts between $10-36$\,\AA\ with
240: $\sim 15000$ counts per 0.06\,\AA\ resolution element in RGS1 near 21\,\AA,
241: over twice that in the N05 Mrk~421 \chandra\ spectrum.
242:
243: We first used the spectral fitting program
244: \emph{Sherpa}\footnote{\url{http://cxc.harvard.edu/sherpa/}} to fit
245: a simple power law plus Galactic foreground absorption model to the
246: RGS1 and RGS2 data; however, at such high spectral quality the RGS
247: response model does not appear to be well--determined, and large residuals
248: remained. For line measurements, we thus only considered
249: $\sim 2$\,\AA\ windows around each wavelength of interest, using a power
250: law to independently model
251: the RGS1 and RGS2 continua within each window
252: and excluding the strongest narrow detector features (with typical
253: widths of 70\,m\AA\ or less). None of the intervening absorption
254: lines were apparent through a visual inspection of the \xmm\ spectrum, though
255: several of the $z=0$ lines reported by \citet{williams05} could be seen
256: clearly.
257:
258: A narrow Gaussian absorption line (FWHM$=5$\,m\AA)
259: was included in the model for each
260: line measurement or upper limit reported by N05. When convolved with
261: the RGS instrumental response these absorption lines appeared broadened
262: to the RGS line spread function (LSF) widths \citep[typically
263: FWHM$=60-70$\,m\AA;][]{denherder01}. The $2\sigma$
264: upper limits on all equivalent widths were then calculated (allowing the
265: central line wavelengths to vary within the $1\sigma$ errors reported
266: by N05). Since the shapes of the RGS1 and RGS2 instrumental responses
267: are quite different, these limits were calculated using both a joint
268: fit to the RGS1$+$RGS2 spectra as well as the individual RGS1 and RGS2
269: spectra. It should be noted that wherever one RGS unit is unusable,
270: the total response is effectively halved, at which point it has a similar
271: effective area to \chandra/LETG. The resulting equivalent width limits
272: are listed in Table~\ref{tab_ew}.
273:
274: \section{Discussion}
275: Figure~\ref{fig_xmmspec} shows the spectral windows used to determine
276: upper limits on the N05 measured lines, with the data (black), continuum fit
277: (blue), \chandra\ measurements and limits (N05; red solid and dotted lines
278: respectively), and \xmm\ limits (green) overplotted.
279: In all cases, the N05 measurements (or $3\sigma$ upper
280: limits) appear to be consistent with the
281: $2\sigma$ upper limits we have derived directly from the \xmm\ data,
282: as shown in the figure and listed in Table~\ref{tab_ew}.
283: The \ovii\ line at $z=0.027$
284: looks as though it might be visible in the spectrum, but this is most
285: likely due to the weak instrumental feature at $\sim 22.1$\,\AA.
286: For two lines (\nvii\ and \nvi\ at
287: $z=0.027$) the \xmm\ $2\sigma$ upper limits are approximately equal to
288: the N05 best--fit measurements, but since the N05 values are quite uncertain
289: this result is still consistent.
290:
291: Why, then, with $2-4$ times the counts per resolution element, was
292: \xmm\ unable to detect the intervening absorption systems seen by
293: \chandra? Several factors appear to have been involved in this
294: non--detection, primarily: (1) narrow instrumental features caused by
295: bad detector columns, (2) the broader LSF as compared
296: to \chandra/LETG, and (3) fixed--pattern noise at long wavelengths:
297: \begin{enumerate}
298: \item{While broad instrumental features can be taken into
299: account by modifications to the continuum model (as in N05), it is
300: difficult or impossible
301: to distinguish narrow features from true absorption lines; thus, any line
302: falling near one of the detector features shown in Figure~\ref{fig_rgsmod}
303: can easily be lost\footnote{These response file data can be found at
304: \url{http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/$\sim$smita/xmmrsp/}}.
305: This was responsible for the non-detection of the $z=0.011$ \ovii\ K$\alpha$
306: line. Although it was the strongest line reported by N05,
307: its wavelength falls directly on a narrow RGS1 feature and within
308: the non--functional CCD4 region on RGS2,
309: thereby preventing this line from being detectable with either RGS. Since
310: 18\% of the wavelength space for studying redshifted \ovii\
311: ($\lambda>21.6$\,\AA) toward Mrk 421 is directly blocked by these narrow
312: features
313: (with this number climbing to about 60\% if resolution elements immediately
314: adjacent to bad columns are included), these bad columns present the
315: single greatest hindrance to \xmm/RGS studies of the WHIM.}
316: \item{Even for lines where both RGS1 and RGS2 data are available and the
317: instrumental response appears to be relatively smooth, the lower resolution
318: of \xmm\ contributes to the nondetectability of the
319: weaker $z>0$ absorption lines. Figure~\ref{fig_lsfplot} shows the
320: LSFs for both \xmm/RGS1 (solid) and \chandra/LETG assuming an unresolved
321: line with $W_\lambda=10$\,m\AA\ at 21.6\,\AA. While the core of the RGS1
322: response is
323: $\sim 20$\% broader than that of the LETG, the RGS1 LSF
324: has extremely broad wings: only 68\% of the line flux is contained within
325: the central 0.1\AA\ of the RGS1 LSF, as opposed to 96\% for the LETG.
326: This reduces the apparent depth of absorption lines by about a factor of
327: two as compared to \chandra/LETG, severely decreasing the line detectability.}
328: \item{At long wavelengths ($\lambda\ga 29$\,\AA)
329: strong fixed--pattern noise is apparent as a sawtooth pattern in the
330: instrumental response, strongly impeding the detection of species
331: such as \nvi\ and \cvi. Indeed, in these wavelength regimes
332: (the lower two panels of Figure~\ref{fig_xmmspec}), the \nvi\ and \cvi\
333: absorption lines are nearly indistinguishable from the continuum.}
334: \end{enumerate}
335:
336: \section{Conclusion}
337: We have presented the highest signal--to--noise coadded \xmm\ grating
338: spectrum of
339: Mrk 421 to date, incorporating all available archival data. This
340: spectrum serves as an independent check on the recent detection of
341: two $z>0$ WHIM filaments by N05. While none of the \chandra--detected
342: absorption lines are seen in the \xmm\ spectrum, the upper limits derived
343: from the \xmm\ data are consistent with the equivalent widths
344: reported by N05 (even though the \xmm\ data contain a larger number
345: of counts), and hence do not jeopardize the validity of the \chandra\
346: measurement. The non--detections can be attributed primarily to narrow
347: instrumental features in RGS1 and RGS2, as well as the inferior spectral
348: resolution of \xmm\ and fixed--pattern noise at longer wavelengths.
349: This underscores the extreme difficulty
350: of detecting the WHIM, illustrates how the aforementioned (apparently small)
351: effects can greatly affect the delicate measurement
352: of weak absorption lines, and re--emphasizes the importance of high resolution
353: and a smooth instrumental response function for current and future WHIM
354: absorption line studies.
355:
356:
357: \acknowledgments
358: We thank the \xmm\ team for their efforts on this excellent mission,
359: the helpdesk staff for their assistance with the data reduction, and
360: the anonymous referee for helpful comments.
361: This research is based on archival data obtained with XMM-Newton, an ESA
362: science mission with instruments and contributions directly funded by ESA
363: Member States and NASA. RJW is supported by an Ohio State University
364: Presidential Fellowship, and FN acknowledges the support of NASA Long--Term
365: Space Astrophysics Grant NNG04GD49G.
366:
367:
368: \begin{thebibliography}{}
369: \bibitem[Cen \& Ostriker(1999)]{cen99} Cen, R., \& Ostriker, J.~P.
370: 1999, \apj, 514, 1
371: \bibitem[Dav\'e et al.(2001)]{dave01} Dav\'e, R., et al.~2001, \apj, 552, 473
372: \bibitem[den Herder et al.(2001)]{denherder01} den Herder, J.~W., et al.~
373: 2001, \aap, 365, L7
374: \bibitem[Fang et al.(2002)]{fang02} Fang, T., Marshall, H.~L., Lee, J.~C.,
375: Davis, D.~S., \& Canizares, C.~R.~2002, \apj, 572, L127
376: \bibitem[Fang, Bryan, \& Canizares(2002)]{fangb02} Fang, T., Bryan, G.~L.,
377: \& Canizares, C.~R.~2002, \apj, 539, 532
378: \bibitem[Fang et al.(2005)]{fang05} Fang, T., Canizares, C.~R., \&
379: Marshall, H.~L.~2005, \apj, 633, 61
380: \bibitem[Hellsten et al.(1998)]{hellsten98} Hellsten, U., Gnedin, N.~Y.,
381: \& Miralda--Escud\'e, J.~1998, \apj, 509, 56
382: \bibitem[Mathur, Weinberg, \& Chen(2003)]{mathur03} Mathur, S.,
383: Weinberg, D.~H., \& Chen, X.~2003, \apj, 582, 82
384: \bibitem[McKernan et al.(2003)]{mckernan03} McKernan, B., Yaqoob, T.,
385: Mushotzsky, R., George, I.~M., \& Turner, T.~J.~2003,
386: \apj, 589, L83
387: \bibitem[Nicastro et al.(2005a)]{nicastro05a} Nicastro, F., et al.~2005,
388: \apj, 629, 700
389: \bibitem[Nicastro et al.(2005b)]{nicastro05b} Nicastro, F., et al.~2005,
390: Nature, 433, 495
391: \bibitem[Perna \& Loeb(1998)]{perna98} Perna, R., \& Loeb, A. 1998,
392: \apjl, 503, L135
393: \bibitem[Ravasio et al.(2005)]{ravasio05} Ravasio, M., Tagliaferri, G.,
394: Pollock, A.~M.~T., Ghisellini, G., \& Tavecchio, F.~2005,
395: \aap, 438, 481
396: \bibitem[Richter et al.(2004)]{richter04} Richter, P., Savage, B.~D.,
397: Tripp, T.~M., \& Sembach, K.~R.~2004, \apjs, 153, 165
398: \bibitem[Savage et al.(2002)]{savage02} Savage, B.~D., Sembach, K.~R.,
399: Tripp, T.~M., \& Richter, P.~2002, \apj, 564, 631
400: \bibitem[Sembach et al.(2004)]{sembach04} Sembach, K.~R., Tripp, T.~M.,
401: Savage, B.~D., \& Richter, P.~2004, \apjs, 155, 351
402: \bibitem[Shull et al.(1996)]{shull96} Shull, J.~M., Stocke, J.~T., \&
403: Penton, S.~1996, \aj, 111, 72
404: \bibitem[Tumlinson et al.(2005)]{tumlinson05} Tumlinson, J., Shull, J.~M.,
405: Giroux, M.~L., \& Stocke, J.~T.~2005, \apj, 620, 95
406: \bibitem[Weinberg(1997)]{weinberg97} Weinberg, D.~H.~1997, \apj, 490, 564
407: \bibitem[Williams et al.(2005)]{williams05} Williams, R.~J., et al.~2005,
408: \apj, 631, 856
409:
410: \end{thebibliography}
411:
412:
413: %% Generally speaking, only the figure captions, and not the figures
414: %% themselves, are included in electronic manuscript submissions.
415: %% Use \figcaption to format your figure captions. They should begin on a
416: %% new page.
417:
418: %% No more than seven \figcaption commands are allowed per page,
419: %% so if you have more than seven captions, insert a \clearpage
420: %% after every seventh one.
421:
422: %% There must be a \figcaption command for each legend. Key the text of the
423: %% legend and the optional \label in curly braces. If you wish, you may
424: %% include the name of the corresponding figure file in square brackets.
425: %% The label is for identification purposes only. It will not insert the
426: %% figures themselves into the document.
427: %% If you want to include your art in the paper, use \plotone.
428: %% Refer to the on-line documentation for details.
429:
430:
431:
432: %% Tables should be submitted one per page, so put a \clearpage before
433: %% each one.
434: \clearpage
435: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccc}
436: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
437: \tablecolumns{5}
438: \tablewidth{240pt}
439: \tablecaption{\xmmnewton\ observation log \label{tab_log}}
440: \tablehead{
441: \colhead{ID} &
442: \colhead{Date} &
443: \colhead{$t_{\rm exp}$\tablenotemark{a}} &
444: \colhead{$t_{\rm filt}$\tablenotemark{b}} &
445: \colhead{Rate\tablenotemark{c}}
446: \\
447: \colhead{} &
448: \colhead{} &
449: \colhead{ks} &
450: \colhead{ks} &
451: \colhead{s$^{-1}$}
452: }
453:
454: \startdata
455: 0099280101 &2000 May 25 &63.8 &21.2 &15.7\\
456: 0099280201 &2000 Nov 01 &40.1 &34.1 &5.4\\
457: 0099280301 &2000 Nov 13 &49.8 &46.6 &15.3\\
458: 0099280501 &2000 Nov 13 &21.2 &17.8 &17.2\\
459: 0136540101 &2001 May 08 &38.8 &36.1 &11.7\\
460: 0136540301 &2002 Nov 04 &23.9 &20.5 &11.7\\
461: 0136540401 &2002 Nov 04 &23.9 &20.1 &13.6\\
462: 0136540701 &2002 Nov 14 &71.5 &62.8 &16.4\\
463: 0136541001 &2002 Dec 01 &70.0 &58.1 &8.3\\
464: 0158970101 &2003 Jun 01 &43.0 &25.3 &9.0\\
465: 0158970201 &2003 Jun 02 &9.0 &6.6 &9.7\\
466: 0158970701 &2003 Jun 07 &48.9 &29.9 &5.4\\
467: 0158971201 &2004 May 06 &65.7 &40.5 &19.5\\
468: 0162960101 &2003 Dec 10 &30.0 &17.5 &9.8\\
469: \hline\hline
470: TOTAL & &572.3 &437.1 &12.2\\
471: \enddata
472: \tablenotetext{a}{Total observation duration.}
473: \tablenotetext{b}{Effective RGS1 exposure time after filtering for periods
474: of high background levels.}
475: \tablenotetext{c}{Average count rate in the filtered RGS1 first--order source
476: spectral extraction region.}
477: % \tablecomments{}
478: \end{deluxetable}
479:
480: \clearpage
481: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccccc}
482: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
483: \tablecolumns{8}
484: \tablecaption{Absorption line equivalent width measurements \label{tab_ew}}
485: \tablehead{
486: \colhead{Line} &
487: \colhead{$\lambda$\tablenotemark{a}} &
488: \colhead{$z$\tablenotemark{a}} &
489: \colhead{$W_{\lambda, {\rm N05a}}$\tablenotemark{a}} &
490: \colhead{$W_{\lambda, {\rm R1}}$\tablenotemark{b}} &
491: \colhead{$W_{\lambda, {\rm R2}}$\tablenotemark{b}} &
492: \colhead{$W_{\lambda, {\rm R1+R2}}$\tablenotemark{b}} &
493: \colhead{Note}
494: \\
495: \colhead{} &
496: \colhead{\AA} &
497: \colhead{} &
498: \colhead{m\AA} &
499: \colhead{m\AA} &
500: \colhead{m\AA} &
501: \colhead{m\AA} &
502: \colhead{}
503: }
504:
505: \startdata
506: \ion{Ne}{9}$_{K\alpha}$ &$13.80\pm 0.02$ &$0.026\pm 0.001$ &$<1.5$ &$<5.2$ &$<1.9$ &$<2.9$ &1\\
507: \ion{O}{7}$_{K\beta}$ &$19.11\pm 0.02$ &$0.026\pm 0.001$ &$<1.8$ &$<2.5$ &$<2.1$ &$<1.5$ &\\
508: \ion{O}{8}$_{K\alpha}$ &$19.18\pm 0.02$ &$0.011\pm 0.001$ &$<4.1$ &$<7.6$ &$<5.8$ &$<4.1$ &\\
509: \ion{O}{8}$_{K\alpha}$ &$19.48\pm 0.02$ &$0.027\pm 0.001$ &$<1.8$ &\nodata &$<3.9$ &\nodata &2\\
510: \ion{O}{7}$_{K\alpha}$ &$21.85\pm 0.02$ &$0.011\pm 0.001$ &$3.0^{+0.9}_{-0.8}$ &\nodata &\nodata &\nodata &2,3\\
511: \ion{O}{7}$_{K\alpha}$ &$22.20\pm 0.02$ &$0.028\pm 0.011$ &$2.2\pm 0.8$ &$<3.9$ &\nodata &\nodata &3\\
512: \ion{N}{7}$_{K\alpha}$ &$25.04\pm 0.02$ &$0.010\pm 0.001$ &$1.8\pm 0.9$ &$<3.0$ &$<6.0$ &$<4.4$ &\\
513: \ion{N}{7}$_{K\alpha}$ &$25.44\pm 0.02$ &$0.027\pm 0.001$ &$3.4\pm 1.1$ &$<4.3$ &$<4.2$ &$<3.5$\\
514: \ion{N}{6}$_{K\alpha}$ &$29.54\pm 0.02$ &$0.026\pm 0.001$ &$3.6\pm 1.2$ &$<3.8$ &$<8.7$ &$<3.4$ &\\
515: \ion{C}{6}$_{K\alpha}$ &$34.69\pm 0.02$ &$0.028\pm 0.001$ &$2.4\pm 1.3$ &$<5.5$ &$<5.2$ &$<4.2$ &\\
516: \enddata
517: \tablenotetext{a}{\ Line wavelength, redshift, and equivalent width measurements
518: (or $3\sigma$ upper limits) from \citet{nicastro05a}.}
519: \tablenotetext{b}{$2\sigma$ equivalent width upper limits measured from the
520: RGS1 only (R1), RGS2 only (R2), and joint (R1+R2) fits to the XMM--Newton
521: spectrum, when available.}
522: \tablecomments{
523: (1) A nearby chip gap in RGS1 renders this measurement unreliable, so only
524: the RGS2 measurement was used in Figure~\ref{fig_xmmspec};
525: (2) Line was unmeasurable in RGS1 because of a detector feature;
526: (3) Line was unmeasurable in RGS2 because of a detector feature.
527: }
528: \end{deluxetable}
529:
530: \begin{figure} %% XMM spectrum
531: \plotone{f1.eps}
532: \caption{Portions of the XMM--Newton RGS spectrum of Mrk 421 (black histogram).
533: The continuum fit is shown by the solid blue
534: line, the green line depicts the $2\sigma$ upper limit on each measured
535: species from XMM, and the red lines show the results of N05a
536: (where their $3\sigma$ upper limits are shown as dashed lines, while
537: solid lines indicate best--fit measurements). All N05a absorption line
538: positions are labeled, with (1) and (2) denoting $z=0.011$, and
539: $z=0.027$ lines respectively. Significant $z=0$ lines
540: are included in the continuum fit for consistency and labeled with (0), but not
541: discussed further here. Regions that were excluded from the fit
542: due to chip gaps and detector features are shaded; weaker instrumental
543: features are marked with vertical blue ticks. Although joint
544: fits using RGS1 and RGS2 were performed whenever possible, for display
545: purposes only one or the other (indicated in the upper right--hand corner
546: of each plot) is shown for each spectral region.
547: \label{fig_xmmspec}}
548: \end{figure}
549:
550: \begin{figure}
551: \plotone{f2.eps}
552: \caption{RGS1 (top panel) and RGS2 (bottom panel) instrumental response
553: models for the \ovii\ $z=0-0.5$ region, as a function of wavelength
554: (upper axes) and redshift relative to $\lambda=21.602$\AA\ (lower axes);
555: a strong $z=0.25$ line with $N_{\rm OVII}=10^{16}$\,cm$^{-2}$
556: ($W_\lambda=36$\,m\AA) is shown for reference.
557: \label{fig_rgsmod}}
558: \end{figure}
559:
560: \begin{figure}
561: \plotone{f3.eps}
562: \caption{Comparison of the \xmm\ RGS1 (solid) and \chandra\ HRC-S/LETG
563: (dotted) line spread functions for a $W_\lambda=10$\,m\AA\ unresolved
564: absorption line at 21.602\,\AA.
565: \label{fig_lsfplot}}
566: \end{figure}
567:
568: \end{document}
569: