J/ApJ/905/51 X-SHOOTER/ALMA QSOs at 5.78<z<7.54. I. NIR sp. (Schindler+, 2020)
The X-SHOOTER/ALMA sample of quasars in the epoch of reionization.
I. NIR spectral modeling, iron enrichment, and broad emission line properties.
Schindler J.-T., Farina E.P., Banados E., Eilers A.-C., Hennawi J.F.,
Onoue M., Venemans B.P., Walter F., Wang F., Davies F.B., Decarli R.,
De Rosa G., Drake A., Fan X., Mazzucchelli C., Rix H.-W., Worseck G.,
Yang J.
<Astrophys. J., 905, 51 (2020)>
=2020ApJ...905...51S 2020ApJ...905...51S
ADC_Keywords: QSOs; Black holes; Equivalent widths; Redshifts;
Magnitudes, absolute; Spectra, infrared; Millimetric/submm sources
Keywords: Reionization ; Supermassive black holes ; Quasars ;
Active galaxies ; Active galactic nuclei ; Early universe
Abstract:
We present X-SHOOTER near-IR spectroscopy of a large sample of
38 luminous (M1450=-29.0 to -24.4) quasars at 5.78<z<7.54, which
have complementary [CII]158µm observations from ALMA. This
X-SHOOTER/ALMA sample provides us with the most comprehensive view of
reionization-era quasars to date, allowing us to connect the quasar
properties with those of its host galaxy. In this work we introduce
the sample, discuss data reduction and spectral fitting, and present
an analysis of the broad emission line properties. The measured
FeII/MgII flux ratio suggests that the broad-line regions of all
quasars in the sample are already enriched in iron. We also find the
MgII line to be on average blueshifted with respect to the [CII]
redshift with a median of -391km/s. A significant correlation between
the MgII-[CII]158µm and CIV-[CII]158µm velocity shifts indicates
a common physical origin. Furthermore, we fRequently detect large
CIV-MgII emission line velocity blueshifts in our sample with a median
value of -1848km/s. While we find all other broad emission line
properties not to be evolving with redshift, the median CIV-MgII
blueshift is much larger than found in low-redshift,
luminosity-matched quasars (-800km/s). Dividing our sample into two
redshift bins, we confirm an increase of the average CIV-MgII
blueshift with increasing redshift. Future observations of the
rest-frame optical spectrum with the James Webb Space Telescope will
be instrumental in further constraining the possible evolution of
quasar properties in the epoch of reionization.
Description:
The sample we present herein consists of 38 quasars with redshifts
between z=5.78 and z=7.54 (median z=6.18). They were selected to have
both NIR X-SHOOTER spectroscopy and ALMA millimeter observations of
the quasar host.
While the millimeter ALMA results have been previously published
(Venemans+ 2017ApJ...851L...8V 2017ApJ...851L...8V ; Decarli+ 2018ApJ...854...97D 2018ApJ...854...97D ;
Banados+ 2019ApJ...881L..23B 2019ApJ...881L..23B ; Venemans+ 2019ApJ...874L..30V 2019ApJ...874L..30V,
2020ApJ...904..130V 2020ApJ...904..130V ; Eilers+ 2020ApJ...900...37E 2020ApJ...900...37E), a large fraction
of the X-SHOOTER spectroscopy is presented here for the first time.
The X-SHOOTER spectrograph covers the wavelength range from 300 to
2500nm with three spectral arms (UVB: 300-559.5nm; VIS: 559.5-1024nm;
NIR: 1024-2480nm). For the purpose of this work we focus on the NIR
spectroscopy to study the broad SiIV, CIV, CIII], and MgII quasar
emission lines. The X-SHOOTER NIR spectroscopy of our sample was
collected from a variety of ESO observing programs (listed in Table 9).
Total exposure times of the NIR observations vary between 2400 and
80400s (median 7200s). The observations were taken with slit widths of
0.6", 0.9", and 1.2", resulting in resolutions of R∼8100, ∼5600, and
∼4300, respectively, for the NIR arm.
File Summary:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FileName Lrecl Records Explanations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ReadMe 80 . This file
table9.dat 3636 38 Catalog of the X-SHOOTER/ALMA sample of quasars
in the epoch of reionization
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See also:
J/ApJ/613/682 : AGN masses and broad-line region sizes (Peterson+, 2004)
J/ApJS/165/1 : BAL QSOs from SDSS DR3 (Trump+, 2006)
J/ApJ/666/757 : CIV 1549Å emission line in AGNs (Sulentic+, 2007)
J/MNRAS/386/1605 : Luminous K-band selected QSOs from UKIDSS (Maddox+, 2008)
J/ApJ/680/169 : SDSS DR5 virial black hole masses (Shen+, 2008)
J/ApJ/699/800 : Mass functions of active black holes (Vestergaard+, 2009)
J/MNRAS/405/2302 : Improved redshifts for SDSS quasar spectra (Hewett+, 2010)
J/ApJS/194/45 : QSO properties from SDSS-DR7 (Shen+, 2011)
J/ApJS/227/11 : PS1 z>5.6 quasars follow-up (Banados+, 2016)
J/ApJ/831/7 : SDSS-RM project: peak velocities of QSOs (Shen+, 2016)
J/ApJ/819/24 : z>4.5 QSOs with SDSS and WISE. I. Opt. spectra (Wang+, 2016)
J/MNRAS/465/2120 : Correcting CIV-based virial BH masses (Coatman+, 2017)
J/ApJ/883/163 : OI abs. search in Keck and VLT sp. of QSOs (Becker+, 2019)
J/ApJ/887/196 : REQUIEM survey. I. Lya halos around QSOs (Farina+, 2019)
J/ApJS/241/34 : SDSS Reverberation Mapping (SDSS-RM) project (Shen+, 2019)
J/ApJ/873/35 : Gemini GNIRS NIR sp. of 50 QSOs at z≳5.7 (Shen+, 2019)
Byte-by-byte Description of file: table9.dat
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bytes Format Units Label Explanations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1- 23 A23 --- Name Quasar name
25- 31 F7.5 --- zsys [5.78/7.54] Systemic redshift
33- 39 F7.5 --- e_zsys [8e-5/0.003] zsys error
41- 45 A5 --- Meth Method for systemic redshift
47- 58 A12 --- r_zsys Reference for zsys (1)
60- 72 F13.9 deg RAdeg Right Ascension (J2000)
74- 86 F13.9 deg DEdeg [-32.2/28.1] Declination (J2000)
88- 92 F5.2 mag Jmag [17.64/22] J-band AB magnitude
94- 97 F4.2 mag e_Jmag [0.02/0.17] Jmag error
99- 123 A25 --- Disc Discovery reference (1)
125- 143 F19.17 10-19W/m2/nm F1350 [0.13/8.5]? Continuum model
flux at 1350Å,
in 10-17erg/s/cm2/Å units
145- 166 F22.19 10-19W/m2/nm e_F1350 [-0.075/-0.0017]? Lower
uncertainty (15.9 percentile)
on F1350
168- 188 F21.19 10-19W/m2/nm E_F1350 [0.002/0.074]? Upper
uncertainty (84.1 percentile)
on F1350
190- 208 F19.16 10+39W L1350 [0.53/37.81]? Continuum model
luminosity at 1350Å,
in 10+46erg/s units
210- 230 F21.18 10+39W e_L1350 [-0.25/-0.013]? Lower
uncertainty (15.9 percentile)
on L1350
232- 251 F20.18 10+39W E_L1350 [0.013/0.25]? Upper uncertainty
(84.1 percentile) on L1350
253- 271 F19.17 10-19W/m2/nm F1450 [0.12/7.63] Continuum model
flux at 1450Å,
in 10-17erg/s/cm2/Å units
273- 294 F22.19 10-19W/m2/nm e_F1450 [-0.06/-0.00099] Lower
uncertainty (15.9 percentile)
on F1450
296- 316 F21.19 10-19W/m2/nm E_F1450 [0.0016/0.06] Upper uncertainty
(84.1 percentile) on F1450
318- 336 F19.16 10+39W L1450 [0.53/36.52] Continuum model
luminosity at 1450Å,
10+46erg/s
338- 358 F21.18 10+39W e_L1450 [-0.21/-0.008] Lower
uncertainty (15.9 percentile)
on L1450
360- 379 F20.18 10+39W E_L1450 [0.01/0.22] Upper uncertainty
(84.1 percentile) on L1450
381- 402 A22 10-19W/m2/nm F2500 Continuum model flux at
2500Å,
in 10-17erg/s/cm2/Å units
404- 426 A23 10-19W/m2/nm e_F2500 Lower uncertainty (15.9
percentile) on F2500
428- 449 A22 10-19W/m2/nm E_F2500 Upper uncertainty (84.1
percentile) on F2500
451- 472 A22 10+39W- L2500 Continuum model luminosity at
2500Å, 10+46erg/s
474- 496 A23 10+39W- e_L2500 Lower uncertainty (15.9
percentile) on L2500
498- 519 A22 10+39W- E_L2500 Upper uncertainty (84.1
percentile) on L2500
521- 539 F19.17 10-19W/m2/nm F3000 [0.06/3] Continuum model flux
at 3000Å,
in 10-17erg/s/cm2/Å units
541- 562 F22.19 10-19W/m2/nm e_F3000 [-0.025/0] Lower uncertainty
(15.9 percentile) on F3000
564- 584 F21.19 10-19W/m2/nm E_F3000 [0.0009/0.026] Upper
uncertainty (84.1 percentile)
on F3000
586- 604 F19.16 10+39W L3000 [0.55/29.51] Continuum model
luminosity at 3000Å,
10+46erg/s
606- 626 F21.18 10+39W e_L3000 [-0.21/0] Lower uncertainty
(15.9 percentile) on L3000
628- 647 F20.18 10+39W E_L3000 [0.013/0.23] Upper uncertainty
(84.1 percentile) on L3000
649- 668 F20.16 10+39W Lbol [2.85/152] Bolometric
luminosity, 10+46erg/s
670- 689 F20.17 10+39W e_Lbol [-1.1/0] Lower uncertainty
(15.9 percentile) on Lbol
691- 709 F19.17 10+39W E_Lbol [0.068/1.14] Upper uncertainty
(84.1 percentile) on Lbol
711- 728 F18.15 mag m1450 [17.75/22.31] Apparent
magnitude at 1450Å, AB mag
730- 750 F21.19 mag e_m1450 [0.001/0.24] Lower uncertainty
(15.9 percentile) on m1450
752- 773 F22.19 mag E_m1450 [-0.19/-0.001] Upper
uncertainty (84.1 percentile)
on m1450
775- 793 F19.15 mag M1450 [-29.03/-24.42] Absolute
magnitude at 1450Å, AB mag
795- 815 F21.19 mag e_M1450 [0.001/0.24] Lower uncertainty
(15.9 percentile) on M1450
817- 838 F22.19 mag E_M1450 [-0.19/-0.001] Upper
uncertainty (84.1 percentile)
on M1450
840- 858 F19.16 --- Plslope [-2.04/-0.72]? Continuum model
power law slope
860- 882 F23.20 --- e_Plslope [-0.16/-0.00013]? Lower
uncertainty (15.9 percentile)
on Plslope
884- 904 F21.19 --- E_Plslope [0.0026/0.16]? Upper
uncertainty (84.1 percentile)
on Plslope
906- 923 F18.12 0.1nm CIV-wave [10443/12922]? CIV peak
wavelength, Angstroms
925- 945 F21.17 0.1nm e_CIV-wave [-30.23/-0.42]? Lower
uncertainty (15.9 percentile)
on CIV-wave
947- 966 F20.17 0.1nm E_CIV-wave [0.37/21.7]? Upper uncertainty
(84.1 percentile) on CIV-wave
968- 985 F18.16 --- CIV-z [5.74/7.35]? CIV peak redshift
987- 1008 F22.19 --- e_CIV-z [-0.02/-0.00027]? Lower
uncertainty (15.9 percentile)
on CIV-z
1010- 1031 F22.20 --- E_CIV-z [0.0002/0.014]? Upper
uncertainty (84.1 percentile)
on CIV-z
1033- 1052 F20.14 km/s CIV-vs [-7062/164]? CIV velocity shift
to Zsys
1054- 1073 F20.15 km/s e_CIV-vs [-869/-11.7]? Lower uncertainty
(15.9 percentile) on CIV-vs
1075- 1093 F19.15 km/s E_CIV-vs [10.26/595]? Upper uncertainty
(84.1 percentile) on CIV-vs
1095- 1113 F19.13 km/s CIV-FWHM [886/18297]? CIV FWHM (2)
1115- 1134 F20.14 km/s e_CIV-FWHM [-2274/-41.5]? Lower
uncertainty (15.9 percentile)
on CIV-FWHM (2)
1136- 1155 F20.15 km/s E_CIV-FWHM [43/2324]? Upper uncertainty
(84.1 percentile) on CIV-FWHM
(2)
1157- 1174 F18.15 0.1nm CIV-EW [7/84]? CIV Rest-frame
equivalent width
1176- 1194 F19.16 0.1nm e_CIV-EW [-9.3/-0.38]? Lower uncertainty
(15.9 percentile) on CIV-EW
1196- 1214 F19.16 0.1nm E_CIV-EW [0.34/12.7]? Upper uncertainty
(84.1 percentile) on CIV-EW
1216- 1233 F18.13 km/s CIV-FWHM-c [1602/7801]? CIV corrected FWHM
(Coatman+
2017, J/MNRAS/465/2120)
1235- 1255 F21.15 km/s e_CIV-FWHM-c [-1169/-52.7]? Lower
uncertainty (15.9 percentile)
on CIV-FWHM-c
1257- 1276 F20.15 km/s E_CIV-FWHM-c [57.89/1880]? Upper uncertainty
(84.1 percentile) on CIV-FWHM-c
1278- 1299 A22 cW/m2/nm CIV-F Integrated CIV flux,
erg/s/cm2/Angstrom
1301- 1323 A23 cW/m2/nm e_CIV-F Lower uncertainty (15.9
percentile) on CIV-F
1325- 1346 A22 cW/m2/nm E_CIV-F Upper uncertainty (84.1
percentile) on CIV-F
1348- 1369 A22 10-7W CIV-L Integrated CIV luminosity,
erg/s
1371- 1393 A23 10-7W e_CIV-L Lower uncertainty (15.9
percentile) on CIV-L
1395- 1416 A22 10-7W E_CIV-L Upper uncertainty (84.1
percentile) on CIV-L
1418- 1438 F21.18 10+9Msun CIV-BHMV06 [0.029/49.3]? CIV Black hole
mass
(Vestergaard & Peterson
2006ApJ...641..689V 2006ApJ...641..689V)
1440- 1461 F22.19 10+9Msun e_CIV-BHMV06 [-4.7/-0.003]? Lower
uncertainty (15.9 percentile)
on CIV-BHMV06
1463- 1483 F21.19 10+9Msun E_CIV-BHMV06 [0.0034/5.4]? Upper uncertainty
(84.1 percentile) on CIV-BHMV06
1485- 1503 F19.17 --- CIV-EddRV06 [0.06/7.8]? CIV Eddington
luminosity ratio
(Vestergaard & Peterson
2006ApJ...641..689V 2006ApJ...641..689V)
1505- 1525 F21.18 --- e_CIV-EddRV06 [-0.96/-0.0026]? Lower
uncertainty (15.9 percentile)
on CIV-EddRV06
1527- 1547 F21.19 --- E_CIV-EddRV06 [0.003/1.11]? Upper uncertainty
(84.1 percentile) on
CIV-EddRV06
1549- 1567 F19.17 10+9Msun CIV-BHMCo17 [0.1/7.6]? CIV Black hole mass
(Coatman+ 2017,
J/MNRAS/465/2120)
1569- 1589 F21.18 10+9Msun e_CIV-BHMCo17 [-1.14/-0.011]? Lower
uncertainty (15.9 percentile)
on CIV-BHMCo17
1591- 1610 F20.18 10+9Msun E_CIV-BHMCo17 [0.013/2.84]? Upper uncertainty
(84.1 percentile) on
CIV-BHMCo17
1612- 1630 F19.17 --- CIV-EddRCo17 [0.26/10]? MgII Eddington
luminosity ratio (Coatman+ 2017,
J/MNRAS/465/2120)
1632- 1652 F21.18 --- e_CIV-EddRCo17 [-1.08/-0.013]? Lower
uncertainty (15.9 percentile)
on e_CIV-EddRCo17
1654- 1673 F20.18 --- E_CIV-EddRCo17 [0.012/1.27]? Upper uncertainty
(84.1 percentile) on
e_CIV-EddRCo17
1675- 1692 F18.12 0.1nm MgII-wave [19527/22077]? MgII peak
wavelength, Angstroms
1694- 1713 F20.16 0.1nm e_MgII-wave [-31/-1.65]? Lower uncertainty
(15.9 percentile) on MgII-wave
1715- 1733 F19.16 0.1nm E_MgII-wave [1.75/27]? Upper uncertainty
(84.1 percentile) on MgII-wave
1735- 1752 F18.16 --- MgII-z [5.97/7]? MgII peak redshift
1754- 1775 F22.19 --- e_MgII-z [-0.012/-0.00059]? Lower
uncertainty (15.9 percentile)
on MgII-z
1777- 1797 F21.19 --- E_MgII-z [0.0006/0.01]? Upper
uncertainty (84.1 percentile)
on MgII-z
1799- 1819 F21.15 km/s MgII-vs [-1242/697]? MgII velocity
shift to Zsys
1821- 1840 F20.15 km/s e_MgII-vs [-460/-24.3]? Lower uncertainty
(15.9 percentile) on MgII-vs
1842- 1860 F19.15 km/s E_MgII-vs [25.6/380.5]? Upper uncertainty
(84.1 percentile) on MgII-vs
1862- 1879 F18.13 km/s MgII-FWHM [1736/7727]? MgII FWHM (2)
1881- 1900 F20.14 km/s e_MgII-FWHM [-2572/-65.6]? Lower
uncertainty (15.9 percentile)
on MgII-FWHM (2)
1902- 1920 F19.14 km/s E_MgII-FWHM [66.6/1579]? Upper uncertainty
(84.1 percentile) on MgII-FWHM
(2)
1922- 1940 F19.16 0.1nm MgII-EW [6.5/32.3]? MgII Rest-frame
equivalent width
1942- 1961 F20.17 0.1nm e_MgII-EW [-7.9/-0.11]? Lower uncertainty
(15.9 percentile) on MgII-EW
1963- 1981 F19.17 0.1nm E_MgII-EW [0.1/4.2]? Upper uncertainty
(84.1 percentile) on MgII-EW
1983- 2004 A22 cW/m2/nm MgII-F Integrated MgII flux,
erg/s/cm2/Angstrom
2006- 2028 A23 cW/m2/nm e_MgII-F Lower uncertainty (15.9
percentile) on MgII-F
2030- 2051 A22 cW/m2/nm E_MgII-F Upper uncertainty (84.1
percentile) on MgII-F
2053- 2074 A22 10-7W MgII-L Integrated MgII luminosity,
erg/s
2076- 2098 A23 10-7W e_MgII-L Lower uncertainty (15.9
percentile) on MgII-L
2100- 2121 A22 10-7W E_MgII-L Upper uncertainty (84.1
percentile) on MgII-L
2123- 2144 A22 cW/m2/nm FeII-F Integrated FeII flux,
erg/s/cm2/Angstrom
2146- 2168 A23 cW/m2/nm e_FeII-F Lower uncertainty (15.9
percentile) on FeII-F
2170- 2191 A22 cW/m2/nm E_FeII-F Upper uncertainty (84.1
percentile) on FeII-F
2193- 2211 F19.16 --- FeII/MgII [2.4/11.7]? FeII/MgII flux ratio
2213- 2232 F20.17 --- e_FeII/MgII [-2.8/-0.2]? Lower uncertainty
(15.9 percentile) on FeII/MgII
2234- 2252 F19.17 --- E_FeII/MgII [0.23/3.4]? Upper uncertainty
(84.1 percentile) on FeII/MgII
2254- 2271 F18.16 --- CIII-z [5.78/7.51]? CIII] complex
model redshift
2273- 2294 F22.19 --- e_CIII-z [-0.024/-0.0007]? Lower
uncertainty (15.9 percentile)
on CIII-z
2296- 2316 F21.19 --- E_CIII-z [0.0007/0.03]? Upper
uncertainty (84.1 percentile)
on CIII-z
2318- 2337 F20.14 km/s CIII-vs [-3185/383]? CIII] complex peak
velocity shift to Zsys
2339- 2358 F20.15 km/s e_CIII-vs [-698/-35]? Lower uncertainty
(15.9 percentile) on CIII-vs
2360- 2379 F20.15 km/s E_CIII-vs [35/1030]? Upper uncertainty
(84.1 percentile) on CIII-vs
2381- 2398 F18.12 0.1nm SiIV-wave [10431/11706]? SiIV peak
wavelength, Angstroms
2400- 2419 F20.16 0.1nm e_SiIV-wave [-16.7/-2]? Lower uncertainty
(15.9 percentile) on SiIV-wave
2421- 2439 F19.16 0.1nm E_SiIV-wave [1.87/20.3]? Upper uncertainty
(84.1 percentile) on SiIV-wave
2441- 2458 F18.16 --- SiIV-z [6.45/7.4]? SiIV peak redshift
2460- 2481 F22.19 --- e_SiIV-z [-0.012/-0.0014]? Lower
uncertainty (15.9 percentile)
on SiIV-z
2483- 2503 F21.19 --- E_SiIV-z [0.0013/0.015]? Upper
uncertainty (84.1 percentile)
on SiIV-z
2505- 2523 F19.13 km/s SiIV-vs [-6310/-331]? SiIV velocity
shift to Zsys
2525- 2543 F19.14 km/s e_SiIV-vs [-428/-53]? Lower uncertainty
(15.9 percentile) on SiIV-vs
2545- 2562 F18.14 km/s E_SiIV-vs [49.9/520]? Upper uncertainty
(84.1 percentile) on SiIV-vs
2564- 2580 F17.12 km/s SiIV-FWHM [4122/9095]? SiIV FWHM (2)
2582- 2600 F19.14 km/s e_SiIV-FWHM [-848/-151.9]? Lower
uncertainty (15.9 percentile)
on SiIV-FWHM (2)
2602- 2619 F18.14 km/s E_SiIV-FWHM [158.9/736.1]? Upper
uncertainty (84.1 percentile)
on SiIV-FWHM (2)
2621- 2638 F18.15 --- SiIV-EW [5.16/10.6]? SiIV Rest-frame
equivalent width
2640- 2658 F19.16 --- e_SiIV-EW [-0.85/-0.3]? Lower uncertainty
(15.9 percentile) on SiIV-EW
2660- 2677 F18.16 --- E_SiIV-EW [0.3/0.8]? Upper uncertainty
(84.1 percentile) on SiIV-EW
2679- 2699 A21 cW/m2/nm SiIV-F Integrated SiIV flux,
erg/s/cm2/Angstrom
2701- 2723 A23 cW/m2/nm e_SiIV-F Lower uncertainty (15.9
percentile) on SiIV-F
2725- 2746 A22 cW/m2/nm E_SiIV-F Upper uncertainty (84.1
percentile) on SiIV-F
2748- 2769 A22 10-7W SiIV-L Integrated SiIV luminosity,
erg/s
2771- 2793 A23 10-7W e_SiIV-L Lower uncertainty (15.9
percentile) on SiIV
2795- 2816 A22 10-7W E_SiIV-L Upper uncertainty (84.1
percentile) on SiIV
2818- 2835 F18.12 0.1nm VMgII-wave [19522/22064]? VW01 MgII peak
wavelength, Angstroms (3)
2837- 2856 F20.16 0.1nm e_VMgII-wave [-27.3/-1.6]? Lower uncertainty
(15.9 percentile) on
VW01-MgII-wave
2858- 2876 F19.16 0.1nm E_VMgII-wave [1.6/26.7]? Upper uncertainty
(84.1 percentile) on
VW01-MgII-wave
2878- 2895 F18.16 --- VMgII-z [5.9/7]? VW01 MgII peak
redshift (3)
2897- 2918 F22.19 --- e_VMgII-z [-0.01/-0.00059]? Lower
uncertainty (15.9 percentile)
on VW01-MgII-z
2920- 2940 F21.19 --- E_VMgII-z [0.00059/0.01]? Upper
uncertainty (84.1 percentile)
on VW01-MgII-z
2942- 2964 F23.17 km/s VMgII-vs [-1974/521]? VW01 MgII velocity
shift to Zsys (3)
2966- 2985 F20.15 km/s e_VMgII-vs [-377/-24.3]? Lower uncertainty
(15.9 percentile) on
VW01-MgII-vs
2987- 3005 F19.15 km/s E_VMgII-vs [24.3/367.5]? Upper uncertainty
(84.1 percentile) on
VW01-MgII-vs
3007- 3024 F18.13 km/s VMgII-FWHM [1974/8012]? VW01 MgII FWHM
(3)(2)
3026- 3045 F20.14 km/s e_VMgII-FWHM [-1467/-58.3]? Lower
uncertainty (15.9 percentile)
on VW01-MgII-FWHM (2)
3047- 3065 F19.14 km/s E_VMgII-FWHM [64.9/1925]? Upper uncertainty
(84.1 percentile) on
VW01-MgII-FWHM (2)
3067- 3084 F18.15 0.1nm VMgII-EW [9.9/61.7]? VW01 MgII
Rest-frame equivalent width (3)
3086- 3105 F20.17 0.1nm e_VMgII-EW [-6/-0.1]? Lower uncertainty
(15.9 percentile) on
VW01-MgII-EW
3107- 3125 F19.17 0.1nm E_VMgII-EW [0.1/4.4]? Upper uncertainty
(84.1 percentile) on
VW01-MgII-EW
3127- 3148 A22 cW/m2/nm VMgII-F VW01 Integrated MgII flux,
erg/s/cm2/Angstrom (3)
3150- 3172 A23 cW/m2/nm e_VMgII-F Lower uncertainty (15.9
percentile) on VW01-MgII-F
3174- 3195 A22 cW/m2/nm E_VMgII-F Upper uncertainty (84.1
percentile) on VW01-MgII-F
3197- 3218 A22 10-7W VMgII-L VW01 Integrated MgII
luminosity, erg/s (3)
3220- 3242 A23 10-7W e_VMgII-L Lower uncertainty (15.9
percentile) on VW01-MgII-L
3244- 3265 A22 10-7W E_VMgII-L Upper uncertainty (84.1
percentile) on VW01-MgII-L
3267- 3284 F18.16 10+9Msun VMgII-BHMV09 [0.3/9.8]? VW01 MgII Black hole
mass (Vestergaard & Osmer 2009,
J/ApJ/699/800) (3)
3286- 3306 F21.18 10+9Msun e_VMgII-BHMV09 [-1.51/-0.04]? Lower
uncertainty (15.9 percentile)
on VW01MgII-BHMV09
3308- 3327 F20.18 10+9Msun E_VMgII-BHMV09 [0.04/2.4]? Upper uncertainty
(84.1 percentile) on
VW01MgII-BHMV09
3329- 3347 F19.17 --- VMgII-EddRV09 [0.08/2.2]? VW01 MgII Eddington
luminosity ratio
(Vestergaard & Osmer 2009,
J/ApJ/699/800) (3)
3349- 3369 F21.18 --- e_VMgII-EddRV09 [-0.66/-0.014]? Lower
uncertainty (15.9 percentile)
on VW01MgII-EddRV09
3371- 3390 F20.18 --- E_VMgII-EddRV09 [0.02/0.7]? Upper uncertainty
(84.1 percentile) on
VW01MgII-EddRV09
3392- 3411 F20.17 10+9Msun VMgII-BHMS11 [0.48/19.3]? VW01 MgII Black
hole mass
(Shen+ 2011, J/ApJS/194/45) (3)
3413- 3432 F20.17 10+9Msun e_VMgII-BHMS11 [-1.97/-0.05]? Lower
uncertainty (15.9 percentile)
on VW01MgII-BHMS11
3434- 3452 F19.17 10+9Msun E_VMgII-BHMS11 [0.06/3.6]? Upper uncertainty
(84.1 percentile) on
VW01MgII-BHMS11
3454- 3472 F19.17 --- VMgII-EddRS11 [0.06/1.3]? VW01 MgII Eddington
luminosity ratio
(Shen+ 2011, J/ApJS/194/45) (3)
3474- 3494 F21.18 --- e_VMgII-EddRS11 [-0.45/-0.011]? Lower
uncertainty (15.9 percentile)
on VW01MgII-EddRS11
3496- 3515 F20.18 --- E_VMgII-EddRS11 [0.014/0.5]? Upper uncertainty
(84.1 percentile) on
VW01MgII-EddRS11
3517- 3522 F6.1 --- Res [4300/8100] Lowest spectral
resolution of all used
observations
3524- 3530 F7.1 s Exp [2400/80400] Total exposure time
3532- 3572 A41 --- PIDs ESO proposal program ID(s)
3574- 3595 A22 --- PIs Principal Investigator(s)
3597- 3615 F19.16 --- SNRJ [1/74] Mean signal-to-noise
ratio over 1.25-1.345um
3617- 3636 F20.16 --- SNRJb [2/144] Mean signal-to-noise
ratio over 1.25-1.345um, binned
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note (1): References as follows:
Banados2014 = 2014AJ....148...14B 2014AJ....148...14B
Banados2016 = 2016ApJS..227...11B 2016ApJS..227...11B
Banados2018 = 2018Natur.553..473B 2018Natur.553..473B
Banados2019 = 2019ApJ...881L..23B 2019ApJ...881L..23B
Chehade2018 = 2019ApJ...885...59B 2019ApJ...885...59B
DeRosa2011 = 2018MNRAS.478.1649C 2018MNRAS.478.1649C
Decarli2018 = 2011ApJ...739...56D 2011ApJ...739...56D
Eilers2020a = 2018ApJ...854...97D 2018ApJ...854...97D
Fan2000 = 2020ApJ...900...37E 2020ApJ...900...37E
Fan2001c = 2000AJ....120.1167F 2000AJ....120.1167F
Farina2019 = 2001AJ....122.2833F 2001AJ....122.2833F
Jiang2008 = 2019ApJ...887..196F 2019ApJ...887..196F
Jiang2015 = 2008AJ....135.1057J 2008AJ....135.1057J
Jiang2016 = 2015AJ....149..188J 2015AJ....149..188J
Mazzucchelli2017 = 2016ApJ...833..222J 2016ApJ...833..222J
Mortlock2009 = 2017ApJ...849...91M 2017ApJ...849...91M
Mortlock2011 = 2009A&A...505...97M 2009A&A...505...97M
Venemans2013 = 2011Natur.474..616M 2011Natur.474..616M
Venemans2015a = 2013ApJ...779...24V 2013ApJ...779...24V
Venemans2019 = 2015ApJ...801L..11V 2015ApJ...801L..11V
Venemans2020 = 2019ApJ...874L..30V 2019ApJ...874L..30V
Wang2013 = 2013ApJ...773...44W 2013ApJ...773...44W
WangFeige2016 = 2016ApJ...819...24W 2016ApJ...819...24W
WangFeige2017 = 2017ApJ...839...27W 2017ApJ...839...27W
Willott2007 = 2007AJ....134.2435W 2007AJ....134.2435W
Willott2010a = 2010AJ....139..906W 2010AJ....139..906W
Willott2015 = 2015ApJ...801..123W 2015ApJ...801..123W
Wu2015 = 2015Natur.518..512W 2015Natur.518..512W
Note (2): FWHM measurements are corrected for instrumental line broadening
introduced by the resolution of the X-SHOOTER spectrograph.
Note (3): VW01 = Vestergaard M. and Wilkes B. J. 2001ApJS..134....1V 2001ApJS..134....1V
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
History:
From electronic version of the journal
(End) Prepared by [AAS], Emmanuelle Perret [CDS] 11-May-2022