J/ApJ/884/11 Exploring 6 AGN dusty torus models. II. (Gonzalez-Martin+, 2019) ================================================================================ Exploring the mid-infrared SEDs of six AGN dusty torus models. II. The data. Gonzalez-Martin O., Masegosa J., Garcia-Bernete I., Ramos Almeida C., Rodriguez-Espinosa J.M., Marquez I., Esparza-Arredondo D., Osorio-Clavijo N., Martinez-Paredes M., Victoria-Ceballos C., Pasetto A., Dultzin D. =2019ApJ...884...11G ================================================================================ ADC_Keywords: Active gal. nuclei; Models; Spectra, infrared; X-ray sources; Galaxies, Seyfert; Interstellar medium; Extinction Keywords: Active galactic nuclei ; Infrared astronomy ; Dust continuum emission Abstract: This is the second in a series of papers devoted to exploring a set of six dusty models of active galactic nuclei (AGN) with available spectral energy distributions. These models are the smooth torus by Fritz+ (2006MNRAS.366..767F), the clumpy torus by Nenkova+ (2008ApJ...685..147N and 2008ApJ...685..160N), the clumpy torus by Honig & Kishimoto (2010A&A...523A..27H), the two-phase torus by Siebenmorgen+ (2015A&A...583A.120S), the two-phase torus by Stalevski+ (2012MNRAS.420.2756S and 2016MNRAS.458.2288S), and the wind model by Honig & Kishimoto (2017ApJ...838L..20H). The first paper explores discrimination among models and the parameter restriction using synthetic spectra. Here we perform spectral fitting of a sample of 110 AGN drawn from the Swift/BAT survey with Spitzer/IRS spectroscopic data. The aim is to explore which is the model that describes better the data and the resulting parameters. The clumpy wind-disk model by Honig & Kishimoto provides good fits for ~50% of the sample, and the clumpy torus model by Nenkova+ is good at describing ~30% of the objects. The wind-disk model by Honig & Kishimoto is better for reproducing the mid-infrared spectra of type 1 Seyferts (with 60% of the type 1 Seyferts well reproduced by this model compared to the 10% well represented by the clumpy torus model by Nenkova+), while type 2 Seyferts are equally fitted by both models (roughly 40% of the type 2 Seyferts). Large residuals are found irrespective of the model used, indicating that the AGN dust continuum emission is more complex than predicted by the models or that the parameter space is not well sampled. We found that all the resulting parameters for our AGN sample are roughly constrained to 10%-20% of the parameter space. Contrary to what is generally assumed, the derived outer radius of the torus is smaller (reaching up to a factor of ~5 smaller for 10pc tori) for the smooth torus by Fritz+ and the two-phase torus by Stalevski+ than the one derived from the clumpy torus by Nenkova+ Covering factors and line-of-sight viewing angles strongly depend on the model used. The total dust mass is the most robust derived quantity, giving equivalent results for four of these models. Description: We built an AGN sample with available low spectral resolution mid-infrared IRS/Spitzer spectra to confront with models. We based our sample on the 105-month Swift/BAT survey (Oh+ 2018, J/ApJS/235/4). Among 447 AGN selected from the Swift/BAT survey, we found Spitzer/IRS observations for 110 AGN. File Summary: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FileName Lrecl Records Explanations -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ReadMe 80 . This file table1.dat 49 110 Observational details of the AGN sample table4.dat 262 660 Spectral fits for the AGN sample -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- See also: J/ApJ/666/806 : SED of Spitzer quasars (QUEST) (Netzer+, 2007) J/ApJ/656/770 : Mid-IR spectrum of star-forming galaxies (Smith+, 2007) J/A+A/558/A149 : VLTI/MIDI AGN Large Program observations (Burtscher+, 2013) J/A+A/578/A74 : Nuclear obscuration in LINERs (Gonzalez-Martin+, 2015) J/ApJ/803/109 : Spitzer/IRS decompositon of AGN (Hernan-Caballero+, 2015) J/A+A/583/A120 : AGN torus models. SED library (Siebenmorgen+, 2015) J/ApJ/822/109 : MIR view of polar dust emission in local AGNs (Asmus+, 2016) J/ApJ/841/37 : Tori in AGNs through Spitzer/IRS obs. (Gonzalez-Martin+, 2017) J/ApJS/235/4 : The 105-month Swift-BAT all-sky hard X-ray survey (Oh+, 2018) Byte-by-byte Description of file: table1.dat -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bytes Format Units Label Explanations -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1- 3 I3 --- Seq [1/110] Sequential running number identifier 5- 26 A22 --- Name Object Name 28- 32 F5.1 Mpc Dist [3.8/168.6] Distance 34- 36 F3.1 kpc Scale [0.1/2.9] Spatial scale obtained with the short-low Spitzer/IRS spectral module 38- 43 A6 --- Type AGN optical class (1) 45- 49 F5.2 [Lsun] logLx [40.8/44.5] Log of Swift BAT 14-195keV intrinsic X-ray luminosity (Oh+ 2018, J/ApJS/235/4) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note (1): AGN type from Oh+ 2018, J/ApJS/235/4 as follows: B. AGN = beamed AGN: jet closely oriented toward the line of sight to the observer (8 occurrences) Sy1 = Seyfert 1 (5 occurrences) Sy1.2 = Seyfert 1.2 (13 occurrences) Sy1.5 = Seyfert 1.5 (17 occurrences) Sy1.8 = Seyfert 1.8 (1 occurrences) Sy1.9 = Seyfert 1.9 (24 occurrences) Sy2 = Seyfert 2 (42 occurrences) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Byte-by-byte Description of file: table4.dat -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bytes Format Units Label Explanations -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1- 22 A22 --- Name Object Name 24- 26 A3 --- Model Model Name (1) 28 I1 --- Class [0/2] Classification (2) 30- 34 F5.1 % pAGN [1.1/100] AGN model contribution (3) 36- 39 F4.1 % pStellar [0/70] Stellar model contribution (3) 41- 44 F4.1 % pISM [0/98.6] ISM model contribution (3) 46- 51 F6.2 --- chi2 [0.39/192.6] Reduced {chi}^2^ ({chi}^2^/dof) 53- 58 F6.1 mag E(B-V) [0/10.2]?=-999.9 Color excess for the foreground extinction 60- 65 F6.1 mag b_E(B-V) [0/10.1]?=-999.9 E(B-V) Lower confidence interval on E (B-V) 67- 70 F4.1 mag B_E(B-V) [0/10.4] E(B-V) Upper confidence interval on E (B-V) 72- 78 F7.2 --- P1 [0.2/89.5]?=-999.9 Model Parameter 1 (4) 80- 86 F7.2 --- b_P1 [0/90]?=-999.9 Lower bound on confidence interval or limit on P1 (5) 88- 94 F7.2 --- B_P1 [0/89.7]?=-999.9 Upper bound on confidence interval or limit on P1 (5) 96- 102 F7.2 --- P2 [1.3/78.3]?=-999.9 Model Parameter 2 (4) 104- 110 F7.2 --- b_P2 [1.1/80]?=-999.9 Lower bound on confidence interval or limit on P2 (5) 112- 118 F7.2 --- B_P2 [1/78.7]?=-999.9 Upper bound on confidence interval or limit on P2 (5) 120- 126 F7.2 --- P3 [-2.93/76.3]?=-999.9 Model Parameter 3 (4) 128- 134 F7.2 --- b_P3 [-2.94/77.7]?=-999.9 Lower bound on confidence interval or limit on P3 (5) 136- 142 F7.2 --- B_P3 [-3/77]?=-999.9 Upper bound on confidence interval or limit on P3 (5) 144- 150 F7.2 --- P4 [-1.92/237]?=-999.9 Model Parameter 4 (4) 152- 158 F7.2 --- b_P4 [-1.93/999]?=-999.9 Lower bound on confidence interval or limit on P4 (5) 160- 166 F7.2 --- B_P4 [-2/262]?=-999.9 Upper bound on confidence interval or limit on P4 (5) 168- 174 F7.2 --- P5 [0.3/143.2]?=-999.9 Model Parameter 5 (4) 176- 182 F7.2 --- b_P5 [0.1/149.3]?=-999.9 Lower bound on confidence interval or limit on P5 (5) 184- 190 F7.2 --- B_P5 [0/149.5]?=-999.9 Upper bound on confidence interval or limit on P5 (5) 192- 198 F7.2 --- P6 [-2.3/195.5]?=-999.9 Model Parameter 6 (4) 200- 206 F7.2 --- b_P6 [-2.4/289.1]?=-999.9 Lower bound on confidence interval or limit on P6 (5) 208- 214 F7.2 --- B_P6 [-2.5/224.3]?=-999.9 Upper bound on confidence interval or limit on P6 (5) 216- 222 F7.2 --- P7 [0.2/0.41]?=-999.9 Model Parameter 7 (4) 224- 230 F7.2 --- b_P7 [0.17/0.5]?=-999.9 Lower bound on confidence interval or limit on P7 (5) 232- 238 F7.2 --- B_P7 [0.1/0.45]?=-999.9 Upper bound on confidence interval or limit on P7 (5) 240- 246 F7.2 --- P8 [0.18/0.7]?=-999.9 Model Parameter 8 (4) 248- 254 F7.2 --- b_P8 [0.16/0.7]?=-999.9 Lower bound on confidence interval or limit on P8 (5) 256- 262 F7.2 --- B_P8 [0.19/0.74]?=-999.9 Upper bound on confidence interval or limit on P8 (5) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note (1): Model names as follows: F06 = Smooth toroidal model, Fritz+ (2006MNRAS.366..767F); N08 = Clumpy toroidal model, Nenkova+ (2008ApJ...685..160N); H10 = Clumpy toroidal model, Honig & Kishimoto (2010A&A...523A..27H); S15 = Two phase (clumpy+smooth) toroidal model, Siebenmorgen+ (2015A&A...583A.120S); S16 = Two phase (clumpy+smooth) toroidal model, Stalevski+ (2016MNRAS.458.2288S); H17 = Clumpy disk and outflowing model, Honig & Kishimoto (2017ApJ...838L..20H); Note (2): Classification of AGN and fits as follows: 1 = AGN dominated spectrum (314 occurrences); 2 = AGN dominated spectrum and comparably good fit, {chi}^2^/dof