This paper was converted on www.awesomepapers.org from LaTeX by an anonymous user.
Want to know more? Visit the Converter page.

The correlation between WISE 12 µm emission and molecular gas tracers on sub-kpc scales in nearby star-forming galaxies

Yang Gao Purple Mountain Observatory & Key Lab. of Radio Astronomy, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 10 Yuanhua Road, Nanjing 210023, China Qing-Hua Tan Purple Mountain Observatory & Key Lab. of Radio Astronomy, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 10 Yuanhua Road, Nanjing 210023, China Yu Gao Department of Astronomy, Xiamen University, Xiamen, Fujian 361005, China Purple Mountain Observatory & Key Lab. of Radio Astronomy, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 10 Yuanhua Road, Nanjing 210023, China Min Fang Purple Mountain Observatory & Key Lab. of Radio Astronomy, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 10 Yuanhua Road, Nanjing 210023, China Ryan Chown Department of Physics & Astronomy, University of Western Ontario, London, ON N6A 3K7, Canada Qian Jiao School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Wuhan Polytechnic University, Wuhan 430023, China Purple Mountain Observatory & Key Lab. of Radio Astronomy, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 10 Yuanhua Road, Nanjing 210023, China Chun-Sheng Luo Purple Mountain Observatory & Key Lab. of Radio Astronomy, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 10 Yuanhua Road, Nanjing 210023, China
Abstract

We complement the MALATANG sample of dense gas in nearby galaxies with archival observations of CO12{}^{12}\rm CO and its isotopologues to determine scaling relations between Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE) 12 µm emission and molecular gas tracers at sub-kiloparsec scales. We find that 12 µm luminosity is more tightly correlated with CO12{}^{12}\rm CO than it is with CO13{}^{13}\rm CO or dense gas tracers. Residuals between predicted and observed CO12{}^{12}\rm CO are only weakly correlated with molecular gas mass surface density (Σmol\Sigma_{\rm mol}) in regions where Σmol\Sigma_{\rm mol} is very low (10Mpc2\sim 10~{}{\rm M_{\odot}~{}pc^{-2}}). Above this limit, the CO12{}^{12}\rm CO residuals show no correlations with physical conditions of molecular gas, while CO13{}^{13}\rm CO residuals depend on the gas optical depth and temperature. By analyzing differences from galaxy to galaxy, we confirm that the CO12{}^{12}\rm CO-12 µm relation is strong and statistically robust with respect to star forming galaxies and AGN hosts. These results suggest that WISE 12 µm emission can be used to trace total molecular gas instead of dense molecular gas, likely because polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs, a major contributor to WISE 12 µm emission) may be well-mixed with the gas that is traced by CO12{}^{12}\rm CO. We propose that WISE 12 µm luminosity can be used to estimate molecular gas surface density for statistical analyses of the star formation process in galaxies.

galaxies: evolution – galaxies: ISM – galaxies: molecular gas – galaxies: infrared photometry
journal: ApJsoftware: STARLINK (Currie et al., 2014), ORAC-DR pipeline (Jenness et al., 2015), GILDAS/CLASS (Pety, 2005; Gildas Team, 2013), SExtractor (Bertin & Arnouts, 1996), LinMix (Kelly, 2007), IDL Astronomy user’s library (Landsman, 1995)

1 Introduction

In current galaxy formation models, galaxies form within dark matter halos. Some of the gas in the potential wells of these halos is able to cool, condense, gravitationally collapse, and then form stars (e.g. White & Rees, 1978). It is thus crucial to understand the physical processes which govern how gas is converted into stars in galaxies before one can have a complete picture of galaxy formation and evolution. Since the first power-law relation studying these process provided by Schmidt (1959), the most commonly used Kennicutt–Schmidt (KS) law relates the surface densities of star formation rate (SFR) and that of cold gas in a galactic disc, which is characterized as: ΣSFRΣ(gas)1.4\Sigma_{\mathrm{SFR}}\propto\Sigma(\mathrm{gas})^{1.4} (Kennicutt, 1998), where gas includes both atomic and molecular gas. Thanks to observations of multiple molecular species at (sub)millimeter bands, it is found that star formation takes place in the clumps and cores within giant molecular clouds (GMCs), so SFR is linearly correlated with the amount of molecular gas (H2, traced by CO) instead of the atomic gas Baan et al. (2008); Bigiel et al. (2008); Leroy et al. (2008); Kennicutt & Evans (2012).

However, the physical processes that produce the empirical correlation between SFR and gas are far from being fully understood. For instance, the ΣSFR\Sigma_{\mathrm{SFR}}-ΣH2\Sigma_{\mathrm{H_{2}}} law may not be universal from both observations (Daddi et al., 2010; Shetty et al., 2013) and theoretical predictions (Krumholz & McKee, 2005; Elmegreen, 2015, 2018), and the existing stars may play an important role in regulating SFR in regions or galaxies with low gas surface densities (Shi et al., 2011, 2018). Meanwhile, Gao & Solomon (2004a, b) revealed a tight linear relation between the integrated SFRs (traced by total infrared luminosity) and dense molecular gas masses (derived from HCN emission) of normal and starburst galaxies. This relation still hold at the scale of Galactic massive cores in the Milky Way (Wu et al., 2005), where the KS law breaks down (Onodera et al., 2010; Nguyen-Luong et al., 2016).

From an observational perspective, large optical imaging and spectroscopic surveys have in the past two decades well established that the cessation of star formation is one of the driving processes of galaxy evolution over the past 8–10 Gyr (Bell et al., 2004; Bundy et al., 2006; Faber et al., 2007). However, despite a rich history of studies, a full understanding of the way in which star formation shuts down remains elusive. No matter what drives the star formation cessation in galaxies, the cold gas supply must be cut off or (if the galaxies manage to retain their cold gas) the star formation efficiency must be effectively reduced. In any case, it is critical to understand the cold gas content (especially molecular gas) and its relationship to star formation and galaxy properties.

At present, samples of galaxies with molecular gas measurements are far smaller and have poorer spatial resolution compared to optical surveys, which limits the sample sizes of studies of molecular gas and star formation in nearby galaxies. Jiang et al. (2015); Gao et al. (2019); Chown et al. (2021) claim that the strong and tight relation between CO luminosity and WISE 12 µm (hereafter W3) luminosity on both galaxy and sub-galaxy scales should be applied to large samples of galaxies to enable star formation and gas-related processes to be studied statistically. At the moment, one advantage that WISE has over the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) is a full-sky survey, which makes WISE-based molecular gas estimators viable over the entire sky. Leroy et al. (2021) also confirm a strong, linear correlation between W3 emission and CO(2-1) intensity, and adopt WISE 12 µm emission as the best template to derived the aperture correction for CO(2-1) luminosity in PHANGS–ALMA observations. However, the physical origin (if any) is still under question, though the relation is very tight.

The WISE 12 µm band spanning a broad wavelength range from 7.5 to 16.5 µm (Jarrett et al., 2011), includes prominent polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) emission, and other dust emission (Wright et al., 2010). The PAH features at 8.6, 11.3 and 12.7 µm are produced by C–H bending modes in and out of plane, and 7.7 µm PAH emission (which partly contributes to W3 emission) is from C–C stretching modes (Draine & Li, 2007). PAH emission and warm dust emission are associated with star formation (Xie & Ho, 2019; Popescu et al., 2000), so 12 µm emission could be a reliable SFR indicator as shown by Cluver et al. (2017), and then is linked to the raw material of star formation, molecular gas (thus CO emission).

Meanwhile an emerging and direct PAH–CO luminosity relation has been reported (Cortzen et al., 2019). It is still debated where and how PAHs form, however, both observational and theoretical studies suggest that, closer to the star, PAHs can be effectively destroyed, fragmented, or ionized by intense and hard UV photons with reduced shielding by dust (Boulanger et al., 1988; Giard et al., 1994; Allain et al., 1996; Povich et al., 2007; Sandstrom et al., 2012). Bright PAH emission is only visible from shell-like structures on the surfaces of H ii regions (Churchwell et al., 2006; Rho et al., 2006; Sandstrom et al., 2012; Schinnerer et al., 2013). So PAH carriers preferentially reside in the regions dominated by cold dust and molecular clouds, where deservedly they should share similar excitation mechanisms (mainly by the interstellar radiation field) (Haas et al., 2002; Bendo et al., 2008, 2010; Sandstrom et al., 2010, 2012). This conjecture is in agreement with the model (Akimkin et al., 2015), where PAHs with a non-zero charge are well coupled to the gas due to the largest surface-to-mass ratio. Besides, CO and dust continuum always trace the same gas component, even in z=6.6z=6.6 quasar host galaxy (Li et al., 2022). So there’s a reasonable prospect that 12 µm emission is a better predictor of molecular gas than SFR.

It will be helpful taking into account the multi-phase (dense) nature of molecular gas to understand the physical connections between molecular gas, 12 µm emission and SFR. MALATANG (Mapping the dense molecular gas in the strongest star-forming galaxies), a large program on the James Clerk Maxwell Telescope (JCMT), is the first systematic survey to provide deep HCN(4-3) and HCO+(4-3) maps (tracing the densest gas undergoing star formation) in the largest sample of nearby galaxies (Tan et al., 2018). The first phase of MALATANG (project code: M16AL007) survey observed 23 nearby star-forming galaxies beyond the local group, which were selected from the Infrared Astronomical Satellite (IRAS) Revised Bright Galaxy Sample (Sanders et al., 2003) with f60µmf_{\mbox{60\micron}}> 50 Jy and f100µmf_{\mbox{100\micron}}> 100 Jy. To improve the sensitivity and serve as a synergy study with The “EMIR Multiline Probe of the ISM Regulating Galaxy Evolution” (EMPIRE; Bigiel et al., 2016; Jiménez-Donaire et al., 2019), which used the IRAM 30-m telescope to map multiple molecular lines of nine nearby, face-on massive spiral galaxies, the second phase (project code: M20AL022) selected a sample of 11 galaxies, with six already detected in the first phase and the other five from EMPIRE sample that were not observed in the first phase. In total, there are 28 IR-bright star-forming galaxies in MALATANG sample. The second phase of MALATANG has started the observations since April 2021 and is still underway. The observations of abundant data molecular lines in these very nearby galaxies makes MALATANG ideal laboratory for studying the relation between molecular gas and 12 µm emission down to very small scales of \sim 1 kpc or less. There are 8 AGNs in the sample, which allow us to study the effect of AGNs on the spatially resolved relation.

We complement MALATANG sample with existing observations of CO12{}^{12}\rm CO and its isotopologues from the literature in order to characterize scaling relations between gas tracer and 12 µm luminosity. The purpose of our work is threefold. First, we revisit the LgasL_{\rm gas}-L12µmL_{\mbox{12\micron}} relation on sub-kpc scales. Second, we explore the physical explanation behind them by comparing the relation of various molecular gas tracers and analyzing offsets from the main relations. Third, we test the applicability of molecular gas mass estimators based on 12 µm luminosity in spatially resolved regions and different galaxies.

Our paper is organized as follows. In the next section we describe the data used in this paper. In Section 3 we show the correlations between luminosities of various molecular gas tracers and W3 luminosities, and examine the dependence of offset (scatter) around on physical conditions of molecular gas. In Section 4, we quantify the variation in the relations between different galaxy, and discuss the robustness of estimated CO12{}^{12}\rm CO. Finally, we summarize our work in Section 5.

2 Data

2.1 CO Data

The CO data are mainly from two large programs: CO Multi-line Imaging of Nearby Galaxies (COMING; Sorai et al., 2019) that simultaneously presents CO12{}^{12}\rm CO, CO13{}^{13}\rm CO and C18O\rm C^{18}O J=1-0 maps observed with 45 m telescope of the Nobeyama Radio Observatory (NRO45M), and the EMPIRE survey and follow-up programs (Cormier et al., 2018) that provide CO12(10){}^{12}\rm CO(1-0) and CO13(10){}^{13}\rm CO(1-0) observations with IRAM 30-m telescope. Then we combine the two survey with the data of these three CO isotopologues in Tan et al. (2011); Nakajima et al. (2018), and the our observations (introduced in Appendix A) using the Purple Mountain Observatory (PMO) 13.7-m millimeter telescope located in Delingha, China. For the galaxies without CO13(10){}^{13}\rm CO(1-0) observations, we also use CO12(10){}^{12}\rm CO(1-0) data from the Nobeyama CO mapping survey (Kuno et al., 2007) to complement. In total, we summarize 22 galaxies in CO13(10){}^{13}\rm CO(1-0) analysis, and 24 galaxies in CO12(10){}^{12}\rm CO(1-0) sample as listed in Table 1.

Table 1: The Basic Properties of Galaxies in the MALATANG Sample.
Source R.A. Decl. D References
(J2000) (J2000) (Mpc)
*NGC660 01h43m02.s401^{\rm h}43^{\rm m}02.\!^{\rm s}4 133842.0′′13^{\circ}38^{\prime}42.\!{{}^{\prime\prime}}0 14.1 1
NGC891 02h22m33.s402^{\rm h}22^{\rm m}33.\!^{\rm s}4 422057.0′′42^{\circ}20^{\prime}57.\!{{}^{\prime\prime}}0 9.1 1
NGC2146 06h18m37.s706^{\rm h}18^{\rm m}37.\!^{\rm s}7 782125.0′′78^{\circ}21^{\prime}25.\!{{}^{\prime\prime}}0 18.0 1
NGC2903 09h32m10.s109^{\rm h}32^{\rm m}10.\!^{\rm s}1 213003.0′′21^{\circ}30^{\prime}03.\!{{}^{\prime\prime}}0 9.2 1,2
NGC3079 10h01m57.s810^{\rm h}01^{\rm m}57.\!^{\rm s}8 554047.0′′55^{\circ}40^{\prime}47.\!{{}^{\prime\prime}}0 20.6 1
NGC3627 11h20m14.s911^{\rm h}20^{\rm m}14.\!^{\rm s}9 125930.0′′12^{\circ}59^{\prime}30.\!{{}^{\prime\prime}}0 10.7 1,2
NGC3628 11h20m17.s011^{\rm h}20^{\rm m}17.\!^{\rm s}0 133523.0′′13^{\circ}35^{\prime}23.\!{{}^{\prime\prime}}0 11.3 1
NGC628 01h36m41.s801^{\rm h}36^{\rm m}41.\!^{\rm s}8 154700.0′′15^{\circ}47^{\prime}00.\!{{}^{\prime\prime}}0 8.6 1,2
NGC253 00h47m33.s100^{\rm h}47^{\rm m}33.\!^{\rm s}1 251718.0′′-25^{\circ}17^{\prime}18.\!{{}^{\prime\prime}}0 3.5 5,6
NGC1097 02h46m19.s002^{\rm h}46^{\rm m}19.\!^{\rm s}0 301630.0′′-30^{\circ}16^{\prime}30.\!{{}^{\prime\prime}}0 15.4 \dots
NGC1365 03h33m36.s403^{\rm h}33^{\rm m}36.\!^{\rm s}4 360825.0′′-36^{\circ}08^{\prime}25.\!{{}^{\prime\prime}}0 18.1 \dots
NGC1808 05h07m42.s305^{\rm h}07^{\rm m}42.\!^{\rm s}3 373047.0′′-37^{\circ}30^{\prime}47.\!{{}^{\prime\prime}}0 9.5 \dots
NGC4631 12h42m08.s012^{\rm h}42^{\rm m}08.\!^{\rm s}0 323229.0′′32^{\circ}32^{\prime}29.\!{{}^{\prime\prime}}0 7.5 3
NGC3184 10h18m17.s010^{\rm h}18^{\rm m}17.\!^{\rm s}0 412528.0′′41^{\circ}25^{\prime}28.\!{{}^{\prime\prime}}0 9.7 2
NGC5055 13h15m49.s313^{\rm h}15^{\rm m}49.\!^{\rm s}3 420145.0′′42^{\circ}01^{\prime}45.\!{{}^{\prime\prime}}0 8.8 2
NGC3521 11h05m48.s611^{\rm h}05^{\rm m}48.\!^{\rm s}6 000209.0′′00^{\circ}02^{\prime}09.\!{{}^{\prime\prime}}0 12.1 1
Maffei2 02h41m55.s002^{\rm h}41^{\rm m}55.\!^{\rm s}0 593615.0′′59^{\circ}36^{\prime}15.\!{{}^{\prime\prime}}0 3.5 6
NGC1068 02h42m40.s702^{\rm h}42^{\rm m}40.\!^{\rm s}7 000048.0′′-00^{\circ}00^{\prime}48.\!{{}^{\prime\prime}}0 10.1 5,6
IC342 03h46m48.s503^{\rm h}46^{\rm m}48.\!^{\rm s}5 680547.0′′68^{\circ}05^{\prime}47.\!{{}^{\prime\prime}}0 3.4 5,6
M82 09h55m52.s709^{\rm h}55^{\rm m}52.\!^{\rm s}7 694046.0′′69^{\circ}40^{\prime}46.\!{{}^{\prime\prime}}0 3.5 1,3
Arp299 11h28m30.s411^{\rm h}28^{\rm m}30.\!^{\rm s}4 583410.0′′58^{\circ}34^{\prime}10.\!{{}^{\prime\prime}}0 54.1 \dots
NGC4736 12h50m53.s012^{\rm h}50^{\rm m}53.\!^{\rm s}0 410714.0′′41^{\circ}07^{\prime}14.\!{{}^{\prime\prime}}0 4.6 4,6
M51 13h29m52.s713^{\rm h}29^{\rm m}52.\!^{\rm s}7 471143.0′′47^{\circ}11^{\prime}43.\!{{}^{\prime\prime}}0 8.6 3,4,6
M83 13h37m00.s913^{\rm h}37^{\rm m}00.\!^{\rm s}9 295156.0′′-29^{\circ}51^{\prime}56.\!{{}^{\prime\prime}}0 4.7 6
NGC5457 14h03m12.s514^{\rm h}03^{\rm m}12.\!^{\rm s}5 542056.0′′54^{\circ}20^{\prime}56.\!{{}^{\prime\prime}}0 6.6 4,6
NGC6946 20h34m52.s320^{\rm h}34^{\rm m}52.\!^{\rm s}3 600914.0′′60^{\circ}09^{\prime}14.\!{{}^{\prime\prime}}0 4.5 2
NGC4254 12h18m50.s012^{\rm h}18^{\rm m}50.\!^{\rm s}0 142459.0′′14^{\circ}24^{\prime}59.\!{{}^{\prime\prime}}0 13.9 2
NGC4321 12h22m55.s012^{\rm h}22^{\rm m}55.\!^{\rm s}0 154919.0′′15^{\circ}49^{\prime}19.\!{{}^{\prime\prime}}0 13.9 2

Note. —

(1): Galaxy name. Those marked with an asterisk (*) are AGN hosts.

(2) and (3): Galaxy center coordinates.

(4): Luminosity distance are the latest measurements that can be found in the NED database (NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database, 2019) by 14nd, Spe, 2022. References: Nasonova et al. (2011); Radburn-Smith et al. (2011); Adamo et al. (2012); Tully et al. (2016, 2013); Sorce et al. (2014); Sabbi et al. (2018); Jang et al. (2018); Monachesi et al. (2016); Pejcha & Prieto (2015); Vacca et al. (2015); McQuinn et al. (2017); Hoeflich et al. (2017). (5): CO data sources, 1. the COMING survey Sorai et al., 2019; 2. EMPIRE survey, Cormier et al., 2018; 3. Tan et al., 2011; 4. this work; 5. Nakajima et al., 2018; and 6. Kuno et al., 2007 (only CO12{}^{12}\rm CO). Note that Sliwa et al. (2012) provide high-resolution maps of CO12(32){}^{12}\mathrm{CO}(3-2), CO12(21){}^{12}\mathrm{CO}(2-1) and CO13(21){}^{13}\mathrm{CO}(2-1) observed using the Submillimeter Array for ARP299, but are not included in this work to avoid uncertainty in the line ratio.

For the CO datacubes, we reproject them with 1/2×1/\sqrt{2}\times beam size to avoid over-sampling, and then extract the spectra for each new position. Based on these spectra that are converted in main-beam temperature (TmbT_{\rm mb}) scales, after determining the velocity range of the line emission (from CO12{}^{12}\rm CO spectrum), we measure the new velocity-integrated CO line intensity in the velocity range, ICOTmb𝑑vI_{\rm CO}\equiv\int{T_{\rm mb}}\;dv, and the new rms noise over the full spectrum except the emission line and edge channels. Then we estimate the uncertainty of the integrated intensity using the formula in Gao (1996):

ΔICOTrmsΔvFWZIf(1ΔvFWZIW),\Delta I_{\rm CO}\equiv\frac{T_{\rm rms}\Delta v_{\rm FWZI}}{\sqrt{f\left(1-\frac{\Delta v_{\rm FWZI}}{W}\right)}}, (1)

where fΔvFWZI/δvf\equiv\Delta v_{\rm FWZI}/\delta v, ΔvFWZI\Delta v_{\rm FWZI} is the full width at zero intensity (FWZI) of the emission feature, δv\delta v is the velocity channel width, and WW is the entire velocity coverage of the spectrum. We treat the positions with a signal to noise ratio S/NS/N\geq 3 as detection, and give an (valuable) upper limit of 3 times the uncertainty for the other ones (tentative detection S/NS/N\geq 1.5). Finally, we derived the luminosities of CO12{}^{12}\rm CO, CO13{}^{13}\rm CO and C18O\rm C^{18}O, and the molecular gas column density from the velocity-integrated CO line intensity ICOI_{\rm CO} using an empirical XCO=2×1020X_{\rm CO}=2\times 10^{20} cm-2 (K km s)11{}^{-1})^{-1} (Nishiyama et al., 2001) corresponding to the galactic conversion factor αCO=3.2\alpha_{\rm CO}=3.2 M(K km spc21)1{}^{-1}{\rm pc^{2}})^{-1}.

Assuming that the molecular cloud is under local thermal equilibrium (LTE) conditions and CO13{}^{13}\rm CO has the same excitation temperature as CO12{}^{12}\rm CO, for the pixels with both CO12{}^{12}\rm CO and CO13{}^{13}\rm CO detections, we can calculate the CO13{}^{13}\rm CO optical depth averaged in the beam from

τ(ICO13)ln[1Tmb(CO13)𝑑vTmb(CO12)𝑑v]1,\tau(I_{\rm{}^{13}CO})\equiv{\rm ln}\left[1-{\frac{\int T_{\rm mb}\left({\rm{}^{13}CO}\right)\;dv}{\int T_{\rm mb}\left({\rm{}^{12}CO}\right)\;dv}}\right]^{-1}, (2)

where TmbT_{\rm mb} is equivalent to the TR{T^{*}_{\rm R}} (radiation temperature) in the notation of Kutner & Ulich (1981). Then we use the definition of N(H2)(13CO)N{\rm(H_{2})(^{13}CO)} in Wilson et al. (2009), which assume the CO13{}^{13}\rm CO abundance [13CO]/[H2]{\rm[^{13}CO]/[H_{2}]} is 8× 105/608\times\ 10^{-5}/60 (Frerking et al., 1982), and equate the column densities derived from both CO12{}^{12}\rm CO and CO13{}^{13}\rm CO, we can estimate the kinetic temperature of the gas, TKT_{\rm K}.

2.2 WISE 12 µm Data

We downloaded the 2 deg ×\times 2 deg assembled WISE Atlas tiles (image and uncertainty files) for each source from the NASA/IPAC Infrared Science Archive (WISE Team, 2020). Based on them, we produced the background map using the SExtractor package (Bertin & Arnouts, 1996). After masking some saturated pixels (mainly for M82 and NGC1068) and subtracting the background, we smoothed the flux images using the convolution kernels provided by Aniano et al. (2011) to mach the beam size of CO or other gas traces. Combining the smoothed flux images and uncertainty images, we can get the instrumental uncertainty, and add it with the zero-point uncertainty in quadrature to get the total uncertainty of 12 µm flux in corresponding pixel. The recovered core of saturation were not used due to the large uncertainty (20% to 30%) as measured by Jarrett et al. (2019), which lead to, in this work, missing W3 data corresponding to the CO data of NGC1068 provided by Nakajima et al. (2018). We can convert the maps in original unit (digital numbers, DN) to the luminosity maps in units of LL_{\odot}, following the formula:

(L12µmL)7.042×(F12µmDN)(DLMpc)2,\Big{(}\frac{L_{12\micron}}{L_{\odot}}\Big{)}\equiv 7.042\times\ \Big{(}\frac{F_{12\micron}}{\rm DN}\Big{)}\Big{(}\frac{D_{L}}{\rm Mpc}\Big{)}^{2}, (3)

which is computed using the W3 zero-point magnitude MAGZP = 18.0 mag, the isophotal flux density S0S_{0} = 31.674 Jy, and the bandwidth Δν=1.1327×1013\Delta\nu=1.1327\times 10^{13} Hz (Jarrett et al., 2011). Then scale the value by a factor of 1.133 ×\times (beam size/pixel size)2 to get the 12 µm luminosity L12µm correspond to gas traces Lgas. Some equations and parameters in calculating the monochromatic luminosity and uncertainty at WISE 12 µm band are described in detail in Chown et al. (2021).

2.3 JCMT HCN(4-3) and HCO+(4-3) Data

The dense gas data are from the MALATANG survey, which aims to construct a largest and deepest HCN(4-3) and HCO+(4-3) maps with FWHM angular resolution about 14′′14^{\prime\prime} in a flux-limited sample of nearby IR-bright galaxies. Tan et al. (2018) present the first results of six galaxies, NGC253, NGC1068, IC342, M82, M83, and NGC6946, that were mapped in their central 2×22^{\prime}\times 2^{\prime} regions using a 3 ×\times 3 jiggle mode (i.e. rapidly step the secondary mirror to observe a grid-pattern of 9 points) with grid spacing of 10 arcsec. Our analysis about dense gas tracers is limited to the maps of these six galaxies.

After producing the pipeline-processed spectra of HCN(4-3) and HCO+(4-3) using STARLINK software package (Currie et al., 2014) and the ORAC-DR pipeline (Jenness et al., 2015), we flag some sub-scans with unstable baselines or abnormal noise levels as bad quality using the CLASS package (Pety, 2005), and then we can get average spectrum for each position. We align the ancillary CO data (Kuno et al., 2007; Wilson et al., 2012) with the datacube to determine the velocity range over which CO emission line is significant, and then fit and subtract a first-order baseline using the rest channels. Based on the final spectra, we also use CO-emitting velocity ranges to measure the integrated-intensity of the dense gas tracers. Then we calculate the luminosities of dense gas tracers for all detected positions following the formula in Solomon et al. (1997):

Ldense=3.25×107(SΔv1Jykms1)(υobs1GHz)2×(DL1Mpc)2(1+z)3Kkms1pc2.\begin{split}L^{\prime}_{\mathrm{dense}}=3.25\times 10^{7}\Big{(}\frac{S\Delta v}{\rm 1~{}Jy~{}km~{}s^{-1}}\Big{)}\Big{(}\frac{\upsilon_{\rm obs}}{\rm 1~{}GHz}\Big{)}^{-2}\\ \times~{}\Big{(}\frac{D_{\rm L}}{\rm 1~{}Mpc}\Big{)}^{2}(1+z)^{-3}~{}{\rm K~{}km~{}s^{-1}~{}pc^{2}}.\end{split} (4)

One notable point is that this work include all pixels with S/NS/N\geq 3 even in the outer disks (i.e. 1\geq 1^{\prime}), which (13 pixels) are not shown in the table provided by Tan et al. (2018).

3 Correlations between molecular gas tracers and WISE 12 µm luminosities

In this section, we first revisit the correlation between 12 µm and CO12(10){}^{12}\rm CO(1-0) luminosity on kpc or sub-kpc scales for as much pixels as possible in the MALATANG sample. We then extend the relation to other emission lines including the optically thin isotopologues CO13{}^{13}\rm CO and dense molecular tracers. By comparing these relations over the same set of pixels, we explore the tightest correlation and the physical reason behind the correlations between 12 µm emission and molecular gas.

3.1 The LCO(10)L12μmL_{\rm CO(1-0)}-L_{\mathrm{12\mu m}} Relation

Refer to caption
Refer to caption
Refer to caption
Figure 1: Correlation of the CO12{}^{12}\rm CO luminosities with the mid-infrared monochromatic luminosities (L12µmL_{12\micron}) from WISE measured in the 12 band for galaxies spatially resolved on kpc or sub-kpc scales. CO detections from different galaxies galaxy are indicated with different symbols and colours as indicated in the upper left corner, while a few valuable upper limits are also plotted as downward arrows. The galaxies are divided into three sub-samples in these three panels, and all detected pixels in the entire sample are plotted as a gray-scale background for comparison. The black line and two dashed red lines depict respectively the best-fitting relation (with parameters listed in Table 2) and the 1 σ\sigma total/observed scatter, while the green line show the relation of global galaxies from Gao et al. (2019). The median measurement uncertainties are illustrated by the characteristic error bars shown in the lower right corner.

Figure 1 shows the correlation of the 12CO(1-0) luminosities, LCO12(10)L_{\rm{}^{12}CO(1-0)} and mid-infrared luminosities measured from WISE images in the 12 µm band at small scales of \sim 0.2-1.3 kpc for the 24 MALATANG galaxies (indicated with different symbols and colors). For some galaxies with available CO12{}^{12}\rm CO data from more than one reference (as shown in Table 1), we just use data from the one that can provide most pixel to compute the pixel measurements of logLCO12L_{\rm{}^{12}CO}(y-axis). Distributions of all detections are shown as a gray-scale background in both panels. The average uncertainty of CO12(10){\rm{}^{12}CO(1-0)} luminosities measured using Eq. 1 in all pixels is about 0.045 dex, and the one of 12 µm is 0.021 dex (which includes both the photometric uncertainty and the uncertainty of the magnitude zero-point measured by Jarrett et al., 2011), displayed as the error bar in the lower right corner.

Then we use the IDL script LinMix 111Available from the NASA IDL Astronomy User’s Library https://idlastro.gsfc.nasa.gov/ftp/pro/math/linmix_err.pro (Kelly, 2007) which is a Bayesian linear regression taking into account upper limits and uncertainties in both the x- and y-axes. Fitting LCO12L_{\rm{}^{12}CO} in Kkms1pc2{\rm K\;km\;s}^{-1}\;{\rm pc^{2}} versus L12µmL_{12\micron} in LL_{\odot} yields the best-fit result

logLCO12=(0.95±0.01)logL12µm+(0.09±0.04).\log L_{\rm{}^{12}CO}=(0.95\pm 0.01)\log L_{12\micron}+(0.09\pm 0.04). (5)

We can see the best fitting of the entire MALATANG sample is almost the same as the result (the green line) of global galaxies performed by Gao et al. (2019), and show slightly larger total/observed scatter (σtot=0.27\sigma_{\rm tot}=0.27) but smaller intrinsic scatter (σint=0.07\sigma_{\rm int}=0.07). So based on the MALATANG sample, we can extend this relation to low-luminosity end (down to 105[Kkms1pc2]10^{5}\;[{\rm K\;km\;s}^{-1}\;{\rm pc^{2}}] and 10510^{5} L in both LCO12(10)L_{\rm{}^{12}CO(1-0)} and L12µmL_{12\micron}), though the relation may be are various from galaxy to galaxy as indicated by Chown et al. (2021).

Analogously, we plot the similar relation between CO13{}^{13}\rm CO and 12 µm luminosities based on \sim 1000 pixels (with CO13{}^{13}\rm CO detections or valuable upper limits) in the left panel of Figure 2, and get the best-fitting linear relation

logLCO13=(0.89±0.01)logL12µm(0.39±0.08).\log L_{\rm{}^{13}CO}=(0.89\pm 0.01)\log L_{12\micron}-(0.39\pm 0.08). (6)
Refer to caption
Refer to caption
Figure 2: Same as Figure 1, the relation between CO13{}^{13}\rm CO (left panel) and CO12{}^{12}\rm CO (right panel) luminosities and 12µm{12\micron} luminosities, but only the pixels with significant CO13{}^{13}\rm CO emission (detected or with valuable upper limits) are shown. Large filled symbols are used to indicate the galaxies observed by us with PMO and the center of galaxies observed by Nakajima et al. (2018). The parameters of best-fitting linear relations are also listed in Table 2. And in the right panel, the gray-scale background in Figure 1 is also plotted for comparison.

For comparison, we also show the relation of CO12{}^{12}\rm CO based on the same pixels in the right panel. The points with same colour and symbol in these two panel belong same galaxy as in Figure 1, and the large filled symbols in Figure 2 are 6 galaxies observed in CO12{}^{12}\rm CO and CO13{}^{13}\rm CO simultaneously by us with PMO and provided by Nakajima et al. (2018). We can see there are strong positive correlations in both panels, though a certain fraction of CO13{}^{13}\rm CO data are upper limits. But the total and intrinsic scatter (σtot=0.21\sigma_{\rm tot}=0.21 and σint=0.05\sigma_{\rm int}=0.05) of CO13{}^{13}\rm CO vs. 12 µm relation is larger than the one of CO12{}^{12}\rm CO (σtot=0.18\sigma_{\rm tot}=0.18 and σint=0.02\sigma_{\rm int}=0.02), meanwhile the Spearman’s correlation coefficient (rr) also is a little smaller (0.90 compared to 0.94). The relations between CO13{}^{13}\rm CO and 12 µm are more remarkably varied in different galaxies (discussed in Sec 4.2). These results suggest the 12 µm luminosities are more tightly correlated with the CO12{}^{12}\rm CO luminosities than with CO13{}^{13}\rm CO luminosities over the same set of pixels. In Sec 3.3, we will try to figure out the parameter that could contribute the scatter of the relation to confirm the application of these estimator.

Just using CO13{}^{13}\rm CO pixel sample to perform fitting in the right panel of Figure 2, besides with decreased scatter and increased correlation coefficient, we can find the new best-fitted CO12{}^{12}\rm CO vs. 12 µm relation yields a little higher CO12{}^{12}\rm CO luminosity and a shallower slope than the global one (the green line). This change can be simply and naturally caused by selection effect. There are two kinds of effect: the missing position with undetected/faint CO13{}^{13}\rm CO emission are more likely to have lower CO12{}^{12}\rm CO luminosity, which lead to the relation be higher, and the missing fraction could increase with reduced 12 µm luminosity (correlated with CO luminosity), which make the slope lower and difference larger and more significant towards the low end. In the discussion that follows (Sec 4.2), we will further analyse the effect of sample selection.

Table 2: Best-fit relations between (dense) gas tracers and W3 (12 µm) luminosities.
Gas tracer Number of pixels kk bb Scatter rr Figure
Detections Upper limits σtot\sigma_{\rm tot} σint\sigma_{\rm int}
CO12{}^{12}\rm CO 5660 292 0.95 ±\pm 0.01 0.09±0.040.09\pm 0.04 0.27 0.07 0.92 Figure 1
CO13{}^{13}\rm CO 1179 277 0.89 ±\pm 0.01 0.39±0.08-0.39\pm 0.08 0.21 0.05 0.90 ±\pm 0.01 Left panel, Figure 2
CO12{}^{12}\rm CO (matched w/ CO13{}^{13}\rm CO) 1448 8 0.90 ±\pm 0.01 0.51 ±\pm 0.06 0.18 0.02 0.94 Right panel, Figure 2
HCN(4-3) 81 0 0.42 ±\pm 0.04 2.40 ±\pm 0.31 0.29 0.09 0.77 ±\pm 0.05 Left panel, Figure 3
HCO+(4-3) 76 0 0.47 ±\pm 0.06 2.06 ±\pm 0.43 0.33 0.11 0.73 ±\pm 0.07 Middle panel, Figure 3
CO12{}^{12}\rm CO (matched w/ HCN(4-3)) 81 0 0.70 ±\pm 0.04 1.82 ±\pm 0.27 0.26 0.06 0.92 ±\pm 0.02 Right panel, Figure 3
C18O\rm C^{18}O 37 0 0.55 ±\pm 0.10 1.57 ±\pm 0.70 0.33 0.11 0.71 ±\pm 0.10 Figure 1

Note. — The relations are parameterized as y=kx+by=kx+b, with all the quantities given in this table, where y is log LGastracer[Kkms1pc2]L_{\rm Gas~{}tracer}~{}[\mathrm{K~{}km~{}s^{-1}~{}pc^{-2}}] and x is logL12µm[L]\log L_{\mbox{12\micron}}~{}[\mathrm{L_{\odot}}]. The derived intrinsic scatter and Spearman’s correlation coefficient of each relation is listed as σint\sigma_{\rm int} and rr, after taking into account upper limits and uncertainties.

Refer to caption
Refer to caption
Refer to caption
Figure 3: The relation between 12µm{12\micron} luminosities and Y. From left to right, Y is defined as the HCN(4-3) (detected) luminosities, HCO+(4-3) (detected) luminosities, and CO12(10){}^{12}\rm CO(1-0) luminosities for the same pixels of HCN detections. Different colours and symbols indicate detected pixel in different galaxies, and the error bars show their measurement uncertainties. In each panel, the black and two red lines show, respectively, the best-fitting linear relation (with parameters listed in Table 2) and the 1σ\sigma total/observed scatter, while the green line in the rightest panel still indicate the relation of global galaxies from Gao et al. (2019).

3.2 Correlations Between Dense Gas Tracers and 12µm Luminosities

A main aim of this work is to figure out the origin of the correlation between 12 µm and CO (molecular gas) emission. It is presumed that the correlation is like the KS relation, in other words, the 12 µm emission (maybe dominated by 11.3 µm PAH bands) is an accurate, quantitative measure of SFR (Xie & Ho, 2019; Cluver et al., 2017), so the correlation can be simply understood as the formation of stars from molecular gas. If this conjecture is right, the spatially resolved relation between the masses of dense molecular clumps (traced by HCN(4-3) and/or HCO+(4-3) luminosity) and stars formed (traced by 12µm luminosity) should be more linear and tight than the correlation with total molecular mass (traced by CO luminosity).

In Figure 3, we show the Ldense{L^{{}^{\prime}}_{\rm dense}}-L12µm{L_{\mbox{12\micron}}} relations, which are based on all HCN(4-3) or HCO+(4-3) detected regions/pixels in MALATANG maps (different galaxy is indicated using different symbol and colour). The rightest panel shows the 12 µm vs. CO12(10){}^{12}\rm CO(1-0) relation over the same set of HCN(4-3) detected pixels. In this panel, we derive the CO12(10){}^{12}\rm CO(1-0) luminosity of M82 from COMING survey (Sorai et al., 2019), and from the spatially resolved spectra provided by Kuno et al. (2007) for other galaxies, which are observed using NRO45M with similar angular resolution.

Then we can see the Ldense{L^{{}^{\prime}}_{\rm dense}}-L12µm{L_{\mbox{12\micron}}} relations is nonlinear with larger scatter of 0.29 and 0.33 dex, compared with the LCO12(10)L_{\rm{}^{12}CO(1-0)}-L12µmL_{\mbox{12\micron}} relation. We also compute the best linear least-squares fitting (logarithmic) and intrinsic scatter in the three scaling relations, with parameters shown in Table 2. The parameters also illustrate that LCO12L_{\rm{}^{12}CO} is more tightly correlated with L12µmL_{\mbox{12\micron}}, with a very small intrinsic scatter of 0.06 dex, than dense gas (0.09 or 0.11 dex). Meanwhile, we also do the fits with logL12µm{{\rm log}L_{\mbox{12\micron}}} on the y-axis, the total (and intrinsic) scatters are 0.53, 0.50 and 0.34 (0.29, 0.25 and 0.12) dex for HCN(4-3), HCO+(4-3) and CO12{}^{12}\rm CO, which are much larger than the ones of correlations shown in Figure 3. Based on these results, we conclude that the relation between 12 µm and CO12(10){}^{12}\rm CO(1-0) is unlikely to be due to star-formation law, though this sample is small.

We also notice there is one AGN (NGC1068) in these six nearby galaxies, whose data points are indicated as the red crosses in the panels. If we remove this galaxy, the slope of LCO12(10)L_{\rm{}^{12}CO(1-0)}-L12µmL_{\mbox{12\micron}} will be much steeper (about 0.9) and in general consistent with the one in Figure 1, while the slope and correlation coefficients of LHCN(43){L^{{}^{\prime}}_{\rm HCN(4-3)}}-L12µm{L_{\mbox{12\micron}}} and LHCO+(43){L^{{}^{\prime}}_{\rm HCO^{+}(4-3)}}-L12µm{L_{\mbox{12\micron}}} relations become much lower and keep constant. So we speculate the relation of LCO12(10)L_{\rm{}^{12}CO(1-0)}-L12µmL_{\mbox{12\micron}} could be further complicated by the possible effects of AGN, which modify the expected bias in such small sample (detail discussion about AGN in Sec 4.3).

Based in these analysis, we conclude that the WISE image can be used to derived molecular gas mass more directly and simply than using some kinds of star formation law, so the estimated molecular gas mass can be used widely, e.g. in studying the star formation process.

3.3 Sources of Offsets from the Main Relation

About the correlations between LgasL_{\rm gas} and L12µmL_{\mbox{12\micron}} shown above, the scatter and some systematic deviations are significant different. We hereby examine the scatters in these relations as a function of the (spatially resolved) physical conditions of molecular gas.

Refer to caption
Refer to caption
Refer to caption
Figure 4: The residuals about the CO12{}^{12}\rm CO versus 12µm luminosity relation (Equation 7) as a function of derived parameters (CO13{}^{13}\rm CO optical depth τ(13\tau(^{13}CO), gas kinetic temperature Tk and molecular gas surface density Σmol\Sigma_{\rm mol}).
Refer to caption
Refer to caption
Refer to caption
Figure 5: Same as Figure 4, but for the residuals of the predicted value from the best-fitting relation between LCO13L_{{}^{13}\rm CO} and L12µmL_{12\micron}.

We use the best-fitting relations (Eq. 5 and Eq. 6) between LCO12L_{{}^{12}\rm CO} or LCO13L_{{}^{13}\rm CO} and L12µmL_{12\micron} to predict CO luminosity from W3 luminosity, then we compute residuals about these fits, e.g. for the CO12{}^{12}\rm CO-12 μ\mum relation,

Δlog(LCO12)log(LCO12,obs)log(LCO12,est),\Delta\log(L_{{}^{12}\rm CO})\equiv\log(L_{{}^{12}\rm CO,obs})-\log(L_{{}^{12}\rm CO,est}), (7)

and likewise for CO13{}^{13}\rm CO residuals. Based on more than one thousand of pixels with both CO12{}^{12}\rm CO and CO13{}^{13}\rm CO detections, we plot the residuals as a function of CO13{}^{13}\rm CO optical depth and gas kinetic temperature in the left two panels of Figure 4 and Figure 5. In each panel, to show the trend, we divide the galaxies into four subsamples (with the same number of galaxies in each) according to the parameter considered, and compute the median and scatter for the galaxies in different bins, which is plotted as the large red triangles and error bars. Then we can see the CO12{}^{12}\rm CO luminosity residuals show nearly no dependence on the optical depth or gas kinetic temperature with the Spearman’s correlation coefficient rr of -0.1 and 0.12 respectively, while the residuals of LCO13L_{{}^{13}\rm CO} is enhanced when the optical depth increase and gas kinetic temperature decrease (rr\sim 0.6 and -0.6). These can lend support to a guess that the relation between WISE 12µm band (PAH) and CO12{}^{12}\rm CO is more physically fundamental. And the relation between 12µm and CO13{}^{13}\rm CO emission, most if not all, is the consequence of relation between 12µm and CO12{}^{12}\rm CO with the effect of optical depth and temperature.

In Figure 4, we use the linear fit shown in Figure 1 to predict the CO12{}^{12}\rm CO luminosity, because it’s based on a more complete sample of pixel and more consistent with the global one provided in Gao et al. (2019), compared with the one in the right panel of Figure 2. Then we also check the correlations between the CO12{}^{12}\rm CO luminosity residuals and the spatially resolved parameters using the second fitting, and find no correlation (|r|0.1{\lvert}r{\rvert}\leq 0.1), which support the different dependence between Δ{\Delta} log(LCO12)L_{{}^{12}\rm CO}) and Δ{\Delta} log(LCO13)L_{{}^{13}\rm CO}) on these parameters is real instead of sample selection bias.

We find Δ{\Delta} log(LCO12)L_{{}^{12}\rm CO}) tend to be negative in the region with very low molecular gas mass surface density shown in the right panel of Figure 4, which also explain a lot of upper-limits are not above the best-fittng line in Figure 1. The Spearman’s correlation coefficient (rr) is 0.34 for all pixels, which is mainly contributed by the regions with Σmol<10Mpc2\Sigma_{\rm mol}<10{\rm M_{\odot}pc^{-2}}, and this trend disappears when we just include the pixels with Σmol>20Mpc2\Sigma_{\rm mol}>20{\rm M_{\odot}pc^{-2}} (rr = 0.1 for 2623 detected pixels)).

But, we can’t provide the exact range of Σmol\Sigma_{\rm mol} value where the CO12{}^{12}\rm CO luminosity would be significantly underestimate using 12 µm band, because the CO-to-H2 conversion factor (αCO\alpha_{\rm CO} or XCOX_{\rm CO}) can be largely different from the value we assumed in Section 2.1, which is dependent on the physical conditions in the molecular clouds, XCOn0.5TK1X_{\rm CO}\propto n^{0.5}T_{\rm K}^{-1}, even ignoring metallicity effects and assuming CO emission from the gravitationally bound and virialized cloud cores (Maloney & Black, 1988; Bolatto et al., 2013). Non-correlation between CO12{}^{12}\rm CO luminosity residual on mass surface density at the mid-to-high end is consistent with independence of CO13{}^{13}\rm CO luminosity residual shown in the right panel of Figure 5, because the regions with CO13{}^{13}\rm CO measurements are more likely with high molecular gas mass surface density.

So we guess the correlation between CO12{}^{12}\rm CO and 12 µm emission should be sustained as long as the molecular gas mass density is not too low, in other words, star formation could take place, where the 12 µm emission is dominated by the PAH formed in molecular clouds. We also examine the correlation between the offset and the dense gas fraction, which is indicated by the luminosity ratios of HCN(4-3) and HCO+(4-3) over CO12{}^{12}\rm CO. We find that the offset appears to be nearly independent (with correlation coefficient less than 0.2), because there should be a large amount of molecular gas existing if the dense gas can be detected.

All these results support that the CO12{}^{12}\rm CO estimators based on 12 µm emission is usable in the regions with Σmol\Sigma_{\rm mol} higher than a threshold.

4 Discussion

Compared with other gas tracers, the tight relation between CO12{}^{12}\rm CO and 12 µm emission is always present, so long as the molecular gas mass surface density is not too low, and would not be affected by the physical conditions of molecular gas such as optical depth and kinetic temperature. We explore the physical origins of this correlation in Sec 4.1, we test whether the relations are statistically robust from galaxy to galaxy in Sec 4.2, and we investigate the impact of AGNs on the 12 µm-CO12{}^{12}\rm CO relation in Sec 4.3.

4.1 Why is 12 µm Emission Tightly Linked with CO12{}^{12}\rm CO?

Our findings show that there is a tight and strong correlation between CO12{}^{12}\rm CO and 12 µm band emission at scales of about 1 kpc or less. By combining with the global and resolved studies presented by Jiang et al. (2015); Gao et al. (2019); Chown et al. (2021), this linear relation holds over 5 orders of magnitude, and is highly applicable to different physical scales, from spatially resolved regions to whole galaxies. But the physical origin of this relation is still debated.

Our comparisons of the correlations between 12 μ\mum emission and various molecular species may suggests that emission in WISE 12 µm band is mainly from the cold dust (mostly PAHs).

On the one hand, in molecular clouds, PAH molecules and CO12{}^{12}\rm CO are spatially well-mixed, and are excited/destroyed under similar conditions. Dense gas is found deeper inside molecular clouds, while PAHs are found primarily on the surfaces of clouds, leading to a weaker association between 12 μ\mum emission and dense gas. Considering the CO13{}^{13}\rm CO is mostly optically thin (with median optical depth about 0.09), CO13{}^{13}\rm CO emission originates in denser cores than CO12{}^{12}\rm CO as suggested in Mao et al. (2000), which lead to the larger scatter between CO13{}^{13}\rm CO and 12 μ\mum emission than that between CO12{}^{12}\rm CO and 12 μ\mum emission. The slope of Δ{\Delta} log(LCO13)L_{{}^{13}\rm CO})-log(Tk) is also consistent with the power-law index (-1.4 ) of CO13{}^{13}\rm CO/CO12{}^{12}\rm CO intensity ratio as a function of gas kinetic temperature for high densities presented by homogeneous cloud model in Paglione et al. (2001). Similarly we also find the scatter of correlation between C18O\rm C^{18}O and 12 µm is significant larger than that of CO12{}^{12}\rm CO over the same set of pixels (37 pixels in 13 galaxies).

On the other hand, the PAH emission can be detected in wider varieties of astrophysical regions, even in early-type galaxies, where the PAH spectra are dominated by the 11.3 and 12.7 µm band (Kaneda et al., 2005, 2008; Vega et al., 2010). So the PAH emission from the atomic interstellar medium (ISM) not traced by CO can explains why the observed CO12{}^{12}\rm CO -12 µm correlation breaks down in more diffuse gas, which are also shown as the pixels with very low molecular gas mass surface density in Figure 4. This kind of regions or galaxies with few molecular clouds and/or very low molecular gas mass surface density will also be analysed in our next work based on a large sample of nearby early-type galaxy.

Overall, it is plausible our finding support that the 11.3 µm PAH emission is highly correlated with CO12{}^{12}\rm CO emission in both position and flux, which is the main reason why WISE 12 µm band emission can be used to estimate the molecular gas. Future work could confirm this with a study on smaller physical scales to reveal more detail about PAH formation/destruction and emission mechanisms in molecular clouds. In the future, we will do some analysis based on some observations in Milky Way (e.g. Milky Way Imaging Scroll Painting; Su et al., 2019), and focus on 11.3 µm PAH that were obtained with the Spitzer Space Telescope or with the James Webb Space Telescope.

Refer to caption
Refer to caption
Refer to caption
Refer to caption
Figure 6: The distribution of Spearman’s correlation coefficient (a), best-fit slope (b) and intercept (c) between luminosities of 12 µm band (x-axis) and CO isotopologues (y-axis), which is computed based on individual pixel measurements in each galaxy. We only include the galaxies with at least 12 CO detections or valuable upper limits. In the first three panels, the grey histograms show the parameter of logL12µmL_{12\micron} versus logLCO12(10)L_{{}^{12}\rm CO(1-0)} relation obtained for 24 galaxies, and the black ones indicate AGNs, while the ones with red and blue lines show the parameters of logL12µmL_{12\micron} versus logLCO13(10)L_{{}^{13}\rm CO(1-0)} and logL12µmL_{12\micron} versus logLCO12(10)L_{{}^{12}\rm CO(1-0)} based on the measurements of CO13{}^{13}\rm CO detected or tentatively detected pixels in 17 galaxies. In panel (d), we show the distribution of the median Δ{\Delta} log(LCO)L_{\rm CO}) in each galaxies, based on the log(LCO12,estL_{{}^{12}\rm CO,est}) from Eq. 5 for 24 galaxies and log(LCO13,estL_{{}^{13}\rm CO,est}) from Eq. 6 for 21 galaxies. The coloured vertical lines indicate the medians.

4.2 Comparing the 12 µm-CO Relations in Different Samples

To explain the variation in 12 µm-CO relations, we explore the source of variation and offset from the main relations from galaxy to galaxy, beside the study presented above about the spatially resolved physical conditions.

For that, we first do the similar fitting as Figure 2 for all galaxies with a minimum 12 measured pixels (detections or valuable upper limits), to calculate the Spearman rank correlation coefficient rr, slope kk and intercept bb between logLCOL_{\rm CO} and logL12µmL_{12\micron} for each galaxy. Figure 6 shows the histograms of these fitting parameters for different isotopologues.

We discuss the effect of sample selection on the best-fit relations (logarithmic) between 12 µm and CO(10)\rm CO(1-0) luminosity. In the left panel of Figure 6, we can find about the 12 µm vs. CO12{}^{12}\rm CO relation, most galaxies are with a very high Spearman rank correlation coefficient regardless of how to select the pixels used in fitting ( 0.85 ±\pm 0.15 and 0.90 ±\pm 0.19 for all CO12{}^{12}\rm CO measured pixels and CO13{}^{13}\rm CO measured pixels). Then we check the details of 7 galaxies with low value (r0.8r\leq 0.8), and find the reasons for poor correlations are few CO-detected pixels in such galaxies, or small parameter range in the pixels that are detected (e.g. the L12µmL_{12\micron} region covered by the pixels in most such galaxies is less than 1 dex). So it is encouraging to see that the strong correlations between 12 µm and CO12{}^{12}\rm CO luminosity exist in most galaxies with enough statistical data.

In contrast, the distribution of Spearman rank correlation coefficient between logL12µmL_{12\micron} and logLCO13(10)L_{{}^{13}\rm CO(1-0)} luminosity are much lower (0.69 ±\pm 0.2). Similarly, the scatter of slope (kk) and intercept (cc) (σk=0.34\sigma_{k}=0.34 and σc=2.6\sigma_{c}=2.6) is significantly larger than the one between 12 µm and CO12{}^{12}\rm CO (σk=0.15\sigma_{k}=0.15 and σc=1.1\sigma_{c}=1.1 dex for CO13{}^{13}\rm CO measured pixels) as expected.

Meanwhile we find: due to the effect of measurement uncertainty, the slope of best-fitting between 12 µm and CO12{}^{12}\rm CO luminosity tend to be smaller, and the intercept is higher, for galaxies without enough statistical CO pixels, which is similar as the different distribution of kk and cc fitted using CO12{}^{12}\rm CO and CO13{}^{13}\rm CO pixel samples. The selection effect combining the AGN contribution may explain the small slope in the right panel of Figure 3. And we could speculate that the intrinsic 12 µm-CO12{}^{12}\rm CO relation (without selection bias) should be nearly linear (with a slope closer to unity).

To assess the applicability of the best-fitting linear relation in different galaxies, we compute the median of the residuals about them for each galaxy. In the panel (d) of Figure 6, we show the histograms of median Δ{\Delta} log(LCO)L_{\rm CO}): the histogram with grey lines is computed using Eq. 5 based on all CO12{}^{12}\rm CO detected pixels in 24 galaxies, and the red and blue one is computed using Eq. 6 and Eq. 5 respectively, based on all CO13{}^{13}\rm CO detected pixels in 21 galaxies. Overall, both estimators can work well for most galaxies, though the scatter is large in the distribution of Δ{\Delta} log(LCO13)L_{{}^{13}\rm CO}). Based on the grey histogram, we can see the most of median CO12{}^{12}\rm CO offset is between -0.3 to -0.3, except only 3 galaxies with Δ{\Delta} log(LCO12/[Kkms1pc2])<0.3L_{\rm{}^{12}CO}/[{\rm K\;km\;s}^{-1}\;{\rm pc^{2}}])<-0.3. Two of these three outliers are AGNs: NGC1068 and NGC4736 (-0.49 dex and -0.42 dex),about which we will discuss in Sec 4.3). So the estimator (Eq. 5) can predict reliable LCO12L_{\rm{}^{12}CO} for all MALATANG galaxies, even for the incomplete CO13{}^{13}\rm CO pixel sample (the blue histogram).

4.3 Impact of AGNs on the 12 µm-CO12{}^{12}\rm CO Relation

The AGN-dominated (Seyfert) galaxies show a larger scatter in global LCO(10)L_{\rm CO(1-0)}L12µmL_{\mbox{12\micron}} relation (Gao et al., 2019), where PAHs could survive in the highly ionized medium and show surprising abundant features (e.g. Roche et al., 1991; Tommasin et al., 2010). On the one hand, PAH features at 6.2, 7.7, and 8.6 µm are often substantially suppressed in AGN compared to star-forming galaxies (e.g. Valiante et al., 2007; Sajina et al., 2008; Diamond-Stanic & Rieke, 2010), which is interpreted as the selective destruction of small PAHs molecules by the hard radiation field of AGNs (Smith et al., 2007). On the other hand, the 11.3 µm PAH features can be excited by photons or the radiation field from AGNs itself or circumnuclear star formation (Jensen et al., 2017). Li (2020) speculates that the 11.3/7.7 ratios observed in a number of Seyferts could be produced by catacondensed PAHs with an open, irregular structure (be able to have more H atoms on a per C atom basis). And all these features may appear weaker, due to increased dilution from the AGN continuum (Alonso-Herrero et al., 2014) or IR (especially in short wavelengths ) emission from dust heated by the AGN (Shipley et al., 2013).

There are a considerable amount (\geq 50, and about 1000 in total) of measured CO12{}^{12}\rm CO pixels for 5 out of 8 AGNs in MALATANG sample, which can be used to determine whether and how AGN affect the 12 µm vs. CO12{}^{12}\rm CO relation. There are only 3 AGNs in CO13{}^{13}\rm CO sample, and no one with the number of detected pixels \geq 30, so we didn’t provide the analysis on them.

In the Figure 6, we can see that all AGNs also show high correlation coefficient between 12 µm and CO12{}^{12}\rm CO emission, the best fit slope and intercept of AGNs tend to locate at the two end, and the CO12{}^{12}\rm CO estimator (Eq. 5) still work well basically in the AGN sample. It seems these AGNs would not have significant effect on the derived primary LCO(10)L12μmL_{\rm CO(1-0)}-L_{\mathrm{12\mu m}} relationship shown in Figure 1. A linear least-squares fit to the data points excluding the two AGN outliers (NGC1068 and NGC4736) or all five AGNs yields:

logLCO12=(0.96±0.01)logL12µm+(0.00±0.04),\log L_{\rm{}^{12}CO}=(0.96\pm 0.01)\log L_{12\micron}+(0.00\pm 0.04), (8)

which is closer to the relation of global galaxies (Gao et al., 2019).

In the two AGN hosts with significant CO12{}^{12}\rm CO residuals, the pixels in these galaxies are well-fit with a linear relation that is approximately parallel to the best-fit relation in Eq. 5, which covers an extensive radius from the center: 90′′ (\sim6 rK,er_{K,e}, corresponding to a physical scale of \sim 4.4 kpc) for NGC1068, 60′′ (about 1.8 rK,er_{K,e}, corresponding to \sim 1.3 kpc) for NGC4736, and beyond those regions the uncertainty becomes larger due to few detected pixels. The near-infrared KsK_{s} band half-light "effective" radii rK,er_{K,e} is taken from the 2MASS Large Galaxy Atlas (Jarrett et al., 2003; Skrutskie et al., 2003). The larger 12 µm luminosities at fixed CO luminosity in AGN hosts compared to galaxies without AGN may be explained by dust-reprocessed emission peaking between rest frame 15 and 60 µm with respect to star-formation dominated galaxies as shown in Mullaney et al. (2011); Salvestrini et al. (2022), and/or by a prevalence of dust grains that are heated by old stars in weak AGN (predominantly associated with massive, early-type galaxies), which may be contributed by circumstellar dust from AGB stars (Donoso et al., 2012; Villaume et al., 2015). So the different behaviors in 12 µm-CO12{}^{12}\rm CO relation may provide new constraints on the physical processes behind how AGN affect the surrounding ISM and subsequent galaxy evolution.

5 Summary

Complementing MALATANG sample with literature CO, we investigate scaling relations between 12 µm luminosity and luminosities of various molecular tracers at sub-kpc scales. Then examined the residuals around the best-fitting relations as a function of the (spatially resolved) physical conditions of molecular gas. We do some statistical tests to show the significance of the galaxy-to-galaxy variation and the impact of hosted AGN. Our main conclusions can be summarized as follows:

  1. 1.

    We confirm the existence of a strong nearly linear correlation between LCO12L_{{}^{12}\rm CO} and L12µmL_{12\micron} even on sub-kpc scales, and the relation is precisely consistent with global (galaxy-wide) one (Gao et al., 2019) when considering upper limits.

  2. 2.

    Compared with dense gas traces, 12 µm emission is more strongly correlated with CO (the Spearman’s correlation coefficient rr\sim 0.92 compared to rr\sim 0.77 ). The correlation between CO12{}^{12}\rm CO and 12 µm luminosity has smaller scatter than the relation with CO13{}^{13}\rm CO (the intrinsic scatter σint=0.02\sigma_{\rm int}=0.02 dex compared to σint=0.05\sigma_{\rm int}=0.05).

  3. 3.

    We estimate the LCO12L_{{}^{12}\rm CO} and LCO13L_{{}^{13}\rm CO} offset relative to the best-fitting relations with L12µmL_{12\micron}. The Δ{\Delta} log(LCO12)L_{{}^{12}\rm CO}) of pixel with both CO12{}^{12}\rm CO and CO13{}^{13}\rm CO detections exhibits no correlations with gas kinetic temperature or optical depth, while Δ{\Delta} log(LCO13)L_{{}^{13}\rm CO}) shows strong dependence with correlation coefficient rr about 0.6 and -0.6.

  4. 4.

    The only significant offset in the relation between 12 µm and CO12{}^{12}\rm CO emission appears in regions with very low gas surface density (about 10 Mpc2{\rm M_{\odot}pc^{-2}} or less), above which the relation is not affected by the condition of molecular gas.

  5. 5.

    Most AGNs also show strong correlations between 12 µm and CO12{}^{12}\rm CO luminosity, and the relation is consistent with the best-fit from the entire MALATANG sample, although it shows larger scatter. The most pixels in two AGNs with relatively large offset (>0.3>0.3 dex) show an offset linear relation parallel to the one derived from full sample.

We conclude that a tight and strong correlation between CO12{}^{12}\rm CO and 12 µm emission is highly applicable to different physical scales, linking sub-kpc local regions to whole galaxies. Although the relation varies from galaxy to galaxy, CO12{}^{12}\rm CO and 12 µm luminosity overall follow a tight linear correlation over 5 orders of magnitude. Our best-fit relations may be used to estimate the molecular gas masses for regions within galaxies or for entire galaxies. We advise caution when applying the estimator to regions with very low molecular gas mass surface density (e.g. gas poor early-type galaxies) or in a few AGN-dominated (Seyfert) galaxies, where the molecular gas may be overestimated due to increased fraction of PAH emission from atomic ISM not traced by CO or PAH and IR continuum emission excited or heated by AGNs. A demonstration and correction in much more detail will be shown based on a large sample in the next step.

Acknowledgements

We thank the anonymous referee for a thorough and helpful report. We thank the staff at Qinghai Station of the PMO for continuous help with observations and data reduction. This work is supported by the National Science Foundation of China (grant Nos.12033004, 11861131007, 11803090 and 12003070), and the National Key Basic Research and Development Program of China (grant No. 2017YFA0402704).

This publication made use of data from COMING, CO Multi-line Imaging of Nearby Galaxies, a legacy project of the Nobeyama 45-m radio telescope. .

Appendix A The PMO observation

To enlarge the CO (especially CO13{}^{13}\rm CO and C18O\rm C^{18}O) pixel sample for MALATANG sample, we conducted half-beam-spaced mapping of NGC4736 over about 2×1.5{}^{\prime}\times 1.5^{\prime} area, and observations at 3 position along the major axis of NGC5457 using the PMO 14 m millimeter telescope at Delingha.

Refer to caption
Figure 7: Spectra of CO12{}^{12}\rm CO (red thin lines) and CO13{}^{13}\rm CO (blue thick lines) in the regions of NGC4736 (top), NGC5457 (lower left) and M51 (lower right) observed with PMO. The temperature of CO13{}^{13}\rm CO is timed by 5 for directly comparison. We also derive the simulated PMO CO12{}^{12}\rm CO spectra (grey thick lines), from the literature one (Kuno et al., 2007) based on the parameters of PMO and NRO45M telescope. All spectra are on the TmbT_{\rm mb} scale and smoothed to a velocity channel width of \sim 10 km s-1 for display. The SNR of CO12{}^{12}\rm CO and CO13{}^{13}\rm CO emission, and offset from the center of belonged galaxy are indicated in each box.

To take full advantage of the Galactic dead time, we use the CO12(21){\rm{}^{12}CO(2-1)} maps provided by Leroy et al. (2009) to derive CO13(10){\rm{}^{13}CO(1-0)} integrated intensity maps for galaxies without CO13{}^{13}\rm CO data in the northern sky assuming R21R21 as 0.8 and CO13{}^{13}\rm CO/CO12{}^{12}\rm CO as 0.1, and convolve them with the convolution kernel provided by Aniano et al. (2011) to match the beam θHPBW50′′\theta_{\rm HPBW}\sim 50^{\prime\prime} of PMO. Then we scale the image by a factor of 1.133×(HPBW/pixelsize)2{\rm 1.133\times(HPBW/pixelsize)^{2}} and use a conversion factor of 24.9 Jy K-1 to compute the estimated velocity-integrated line intensities in TmbT_{\rm mb} scale observed with PMO beam for the positions from the center to the outer disk separated by half-beam size. Finally, we select these 23 positions in the two galaxies with predicted on-source time for CO13{}^{13}\rm CO to reach S/N=5S/N=5 not exceed 15 hrs by assuming that a line width of emission of 100 km s-1. The rms noise level in the spectra with integration time of 1 minute and smoothed to 20 km s-1 is 20 mK (computed based on the observation in Gao et al., 2019). Besides, we re-observed the center of M51 to compare with the spectrum provided by Tan et al. (2011) to check the effect of upgraded instrument on calibration.

Our observations were carried out with a 3 ×\times 3 multibeam sideband separation superconducting receiver (Shan et al., 2012) from October 2020 to January 2021, and the total on-source time is \sim 128 hours. Two of the nine beams were used simultaneously, one covering the target and one pointing to an off-target area, and the SIS receiver is in double-sideband mode, to observe the emission lines of three CO isotopologues simultaneously, CO12{}^{12}\rm CO in the upper sideband, and CO13{}^{13}\rm CO and C18O\rm C^{18}O in the lower sideband.

We use the CLASS package to reduce the data, which is part of the GILDAS software package (Pety, 2005). After replacing the channels with abnormally strong features by the average flux of the neighboring channels, we visually inspect all scans and classify them into 4 types: good, average, poor and reserved for deleted, based on the quality. First, we just use the "good" scans (with flat baselines, small noise, and no anomalous feature) to obtain an averaged spectrum, and then compute the integrated intensity and uncertainty as introduced in Gao et al. (2019) based on the CO-emitting velocity ranges determined from CO12{}^{12}\rm CO spectra, because CO12{}^{12}\rm CO lines are detected at high S/NS/N in all position. The worse scans usually would not affect the final integrated intensity tremendously, but maybe helpful to reduce the noise in final spectra, because their rms is large and their weight is low when stacking. So for getting spectra with higher S/NS/N, we try to include scans with worse quality after subtract the distorted baseline until the difference of integrated intensity is larger than the uncertainty. Then we select and show the final CO12{}^{12}\rm CO spectra with highest S/NS/N from 4 tests in Figure 7. And there is one more test of CO13{}^{13}\rm CO spectra is just using the scans observed simultaneously with the selected CO12{}^{12}\rm CO scans.

Both CO13{}^{13}\rm CO and CO12{}^{12}\rm CO emission are detected in all 23+1 positions in 2+1 galaxies with S/NS/N > 5, with integrated intensity, luminosity (computed following Section 2.1) and corresponding uncertainty listed in Table 3. But we didn’t detect C18O\rm C^{18}O in any position, so we stack the CO spectra over central 2×1.5{}^{\prime}\times 1.5^{\prime} area of NGC4736, and get detection in all the three CO isotopologues (total integrated intensity: ICO12I_{{}^{12}{\rm CO}} is 39.9 ±\pm 0.5, ICO13I_{{}^{13}{\rm CO}} is 6.1 ±\pm 0.3 and IC18OI_{{\rm C^{18}O}} is 1.1 ±\pm 0.3 K km s-1.

Table 3: Observed and derived properties of CO12{}^{12}\rm CO and CO13{}^{13}\rm CO for galaxies observed with PMO
Source Offsets ICO12I_{{}^{12}{\rm CO}} ICO13I_{{}^{13}{\rm CO}} Useful Exp. of CO12{}^{12}\rm CO Useful Exp. of CO13{}^{13}\rm CO VmeanV_{\rm mean} ΔV{\Delta}V log(LCO12)\log(L_{\rm{}^{12}CO}) log(LCO13)\log(L_{\rm{}^{13}CO})
(arcsec) (K km s-1) (K km s-1) (min) (min) (km s-1) (km s-1) (Kkms1pc2{\rm K\;km\;s}^{-1}\;{\rm pc^{2}}) (Kkms1pc2{\rm K\;km\;s}^{-1}\;{\rm pc^{2}})
NGC4736 (0,0) 18.6 ±\pm 0.5 2 ±\pm 0.3 60 20 315 250 7.33 ±\pm 0.01 6.47 ±\pm 0.06
(-25,0) 16.3 ±\pm 0.5 3 ±\pm 0.4 66 12 311 256 7.25 ±\pm 0.01 6.65 ±\pm 0.05
(50,0) 6.8 ±\pm 0.3 1.1 ±\pm 0.1 79 129 234 90 6.91 ±\pm 0.02 6.16 ±\pm 0.05
(-25,50) 5.8 ±\pm 0.3 0.7 ±\pm 0.1 119 77 397 90 6.89 ±\pm 0.02 6.00 ±\pm 0.06
(-25,-25) 2.5 ±\pm 0.1 0.4 ±\pm 0.1 421 471 321 104 6.46 ±\pm 0.02 5.82 ±\pm 0.07
(25,0) 15.7 ±\pm 0.4 1.6 ±\pm 0.2 286 62 298 284 7.25 ±\pm 0.01 6.39 ±\pm 0.04
(50,-25) 1.9 ±\pm 0.1 0.4 ±\pm 0.1 253 226 216 49 6.36 ±\pm 0.02 5.81 ±\pm 0.06
(0,-25) 2.5 ±\pm 0.1 0.6 ±\pm 0.1 324 253 274 143 6.43 ±\pm 0.02 5.97 ±\pm 0.07
(0,25) 19.1 ±\pm 0.3 2.9 ±\pm 0.2 174 146 315 250 7.37 ±\pm 0.01 6.55 ±\pm 0.03
(-50,25) 8.6 ±\pm 0.2 1.1 ±\pm 0.1 96 141 384 113 6.98 ±\pm 0.01 6.25 ±\pm 0.05
(-25,25) 10.2 ±\pm 0.5 1.1 ±\pm 0.1 30 70 382 125 7.07 ±\pm 0.02 6.22 ±\pm 0.04
(25,25) 13.2 ±\pm 0.3 1.8 ±\pm 0.2 200 152 304 257 7.20 ±\pm 0.01 6.48 ±\pm 0.04
(-50,0) 6.3 ±\pm 0.2 1.1 ±\pm 0.2 153 52 378 125 6.94 ±\pm 0.01 6.21 ±\pm 0.07
(25,-25) 2.4 ±\pm 0.1 0.7 ±\pm 0.1 298 223 253 125 6.54 ±\pm 0.02 6.09 ±\pm 0.06
(0,50) 6.7 ±\pm 0.1 0.8 ±\pm 0.1 257 87 369 121 6.86 ±\pm 0.01 6.07 ±\pm 0.05
(-50,50) 3.5 ±\pm 0.1 0.5 ±\pm 0.1 309 351 406 68 6.58 ±\pm 0.01 5.92 ±\pm 0.04
(-50,-25) 1.9 ±\pm 0.1 0.5 ±\pm 0.1 371 95 321 102 6.43 ±\pm 0.03 5.88 ±\pm 0.07
(50,25) 2.8 ±\pm 0.1 1 ±\pm 0.1 386 408 231 95 6.52 ±\pm 0.02 6.17 ±\pm 0.02
(25,50) 4.4 ±\pm 0.1 0.6 ±\pm 0.1 696 136 350 121 6.69 ±\pm 0.01 5.94 ±\pm 0.06
(50,50) 2.8 ±\pm 0.1 0.5 ±\pm 0.1 961 506 321 104 6.49 ±\pm 0.01 5.82 ±\pm 0.04
NGC5457 (-25,0) 3.7 ±\pm 0.2 0.8 ±\pm 0.1 163 88 245 106 6.78 ±\pm 0.02 6.22 ±\pm 0.06
(0,0) 5 ±\pm 0.2 0.9 ±\pm 0.1 236 230 264 140 6.94 ±\pm 0.01 6.22 ±\pm 0.05
(25,0) 5 ±\pm 0.2 1 ±\pm 0.1 160 53 242 94 6.93 ±\pm 0.01 6.33 ±\pm 0.05
M51 (0,0) 40.4 ±\pm 0.8 4.3 ±\pm 0.4 6 5 472 171 8.16 ±\pm 0.01 6.88 ±\pm 0.05

Note. —

(1): Galaxy name.

(2): Offsets from the central position listed in Table 1.

(3) and (4): The measured integrated intensities (in main-beam brightness temperature TmbT_{\rm mb} scale) and associated uncertainties of the CO12{}^{12}\rm CO and CO13{}^{13}\rm CO emission lines, which are computed using Eq. 1 based on the spectra shown in Figure 7.

(5) and (6): The on-source observing time of the final CO12{}^{12}\rm CO and CO13{}^{13}\rm CO spectra. The process that select the scans is explained in the text.

(7) and (8): The velocity and line width are used to show the range of the CO emission line, instead of the Gaussian-fitted values.

(9) and (10): The luminosity of CO12{}^{12}\rm CO and CO13{}^{13}\rm CO calculated from integrated intensity using the method introduced in Section 2.1.

References

  • Adamo et al. (2012) Adamo, A., Smith, L. J., Gallagher, J. S., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 426, 1185
  • Akimkin et al. (2015) Akimkin, V. V., Kirsanova, M. S., Pavlyuchenkov, Y. N., & Wiebe, D. S. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 440
  • Allain et al. (1996) Allain, T., Leach, S., & Sedlmayr, E. 1996, A&A, 305, 602
  • Alonso-Herrero et al. (2014) Alonso-Herrero, A., Ramos Almeida, C., Esquej, P., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 443, 2766
  • Aniano et al. (2011) Aniano, G., Draine, B. T., Gordon, K. D., & Sandstrom, K. 2011, PASP, 123, 1218
  • Baan et al. (2008) Baan, W. A., Henkel, C., Loenen, A. F., Baudry, A., & Wiklind, T. 2008, A&A, 477, 747
  • Bell et al. (2004) Bell, E. F., McIntosh, D. H., Barden, M., et al. 2004, ApJ, 600, L11
  • Bendo et al. (2008) Bendo, G. J., Draine, B. T., Engelbracht, C. W., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 389, 629
  • Bendo et al. (2010) Bendo, G. J., Wilson, C. D., Warren, B. E., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 402, 1409
  • Bertin & Arnouts (1996) Bertin, E., & Arnouts, S. 1996, A&AS, 117, 393
  • Bigiel et al. (2008) Bigiel, F., Leroy, A., Walter, F., et al. 2008, AJ, 136, 2846
  • Bigiel et al. (2016) Bigiel, F., Leroy, A. K., Jiménez-Donaire, M. J., et al. 2016, ApJ, 822, L26
  • Bolatto et al. (2013) Bolatto, A. D., Wolfire, M., & Leroy, A. K. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 207
  • Boulanger et al. (1988) Boulanger, F., Beichman, C., Desert, F. X., et al. 1988, ApJ, 332, 328
  • Bundy et al. (2006) Bundy, K., Ellis, R. S., Conselice, C. J., et al. 2006, ApJ, 651, 120
  • Chown et al. (2021) Chown, R., Li, C., Parker, L., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 1261
  • Churchwell et al. (2006) Churchwell, E., Povich, M. S., Allen, D., et al. 2006, ApJ, 649, 759
  • Cluver et al. (2017) Cluver, M. E., Jarrett, T. H., Dale, D. A., et al. 2017, ApJ, 850, 68
  • Cormier et al. (2018) Cormier, D., Bigiel, F., Jiménez-Donaire, M. J., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 3909
  • Cortzen et al. (2019) Cortzen, I., Garrett, J., Magdis, G., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 1618
  • Currie et al. (2014) Currie, M. J., Berry, D. S., Jenness, T., et al. 2014, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 485, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XXIII, ed. N. Manset & P. Forshay, 391
  • Daddi et al. (2010) Daddi, E., Elbaz, D., Walter, F., et al. 2010, ApJ, 714, L118
  • Diamond-Stanic & Rieke (2010) Diamond-Stanic, A. M., & Rieke, G. H. 2010, ApJ, 724, 140
  • Donoso et al. (2012) Donoso, E., Yan, L., Tsai, C., et al. 2012, ApJ, 748, 80
  • Draine & Li (2007) Draine, B. T., & Li, A. 2007, ApJ, 657, 810
  • Elmegreen (2015) Elmegreen, B. G. 2015, ApJ, 814, L30
  • Elmegreen (2018) —. 2018, ApJ, 854, 16
  • Faber et al. (2007) Faber, S. M., Willmer, C. N. A., Wolf, C., et al. 2007, ApJ, 665, 265
  • Frerking et al. (1982) Frerking, M. A., Langer, W. D., & Wilson, R. W. 1982, ApJ, 262, 590
  • Gao (1996) Gao, Y. 1996, PhD thesis, STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT STONY BROOK
  • Gao & Solomon (2004a) Gao, Y., & Solomon, P. M. 2004a, ApJS, 152, 63
  • Gao & Solomon (2004b) —. 2004b, ApJ, 606, 271
  • Gao et al. (2019) Gao, Y., Xiao, T., Li, C., et al. 2019, ApJ, 887, 172
  • Giard et al. (1994) Giard, M., Bernard, J. P., Lacombe, F., Normand, P., & Rouan, D. 1994, A&A, 291, 239
  • Gildas Team (2013) Gildas Team. 2013, GILDAS: Grenoble Image and Line Data Analysis Software, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1305.010, , , ascl:1305.010
  • Haas et al. (2002) Haas, M., Klaas, U., & Bianchi, S. 2002, A&A, 385, L23
  • Hoeflich et al. (2017) Hoeflich, P., Hsiao, E. Y., Ashall, C., et al. 2017, ApJ, 846, 58
  • Jang et al. (2018) Jang, I. S., Hatt, D., Beaton, R. L., et al. 2018, ApJ, 852, 60
  • Jarrett et al. (2003) Jarrett, T. H., Chester, T., Cutri, R., Schneider, S. E., & Huchra, J. P. 2003, AJ, 125, 525
  • Jarrett et al. (2019) Jarrett, T. H., Cluver, M. E., Brown, M. J. I., et al. 2019, ApJS, 245, 25
  • Jarrett et al. (2011) Jarrett, T. H., Cohen, M., Masci, F., et al. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 735, 112
  • Jenness et al. (2015) Jenness, T., Currie, M. J., Tilanus, R. P. J., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 453, 73
  • Jensen et al. (2017) Jensen, J. J., Hönig, S. F., Rakshit, S., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 3071
  • Jiang et al. (2015) Jiang, X.-J., Wang, Z., Gu, Q., Wang, J., & Zhang, Z.-Y. 2015, ApJ, 799, 92
  • Jiménez-Donaire et al. (2019) Jiménez-Donaire, M. J., Bigiel, F., Leroy, A. K., et al. 2019, ApJ, 880, 127
  • Kaneda et al. (2005) Kaneda, H., Onaka, T., & Sakon, I. 2005, ApJ, 632, L83
  • Kaneda et al. (2008) Kaneda, H., Onaka, T., Sakon, I., et al. 2008, ApJ, 684, 270
  • Kelly (2007) Kelly, B. C. 2007, ApJ, 665, 1489
  • Kennicutt (1998) Kennicutt, Robert C., J. 1998, ApJ, 498, 541
  • Kennicutt & Evans (2012) Kennicutt, R. C., & Evans, N. J. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 531
  • Krumholz & McKee (2005) Krumholz, M. R., & McKee, C. F. 2005, ApJ, 630, 250
  • Kuno et al. (2007) Kuno, N., Sato, N., Nakanishi, H., et al. 2007, PASJ, 59, 117
  • Kutner & Ulich (1981) Kutner, M. L., & Ulich, B. L. 1981, ApJ, 250, 341
  • Landsman (1995) Landsman, W. B. 1995, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 77, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems IV, ed. R. A. Shaw, H. E. Payne, & J. J. E. Hayes, 437
  • Leroy et al. (2008) Leroy, A. K., Walter, F., Brinks, E., et al. 2008, AJ, 136, 2782
  • Leroy et al. (2009) Leroy, A. K., Walter, F., Bigiel, F., et al. 2009, AJ, 137, 4670
  • Leroy et al. (2021) Leroy, A. K., Schinnerer, E., Hughes, A., et al. 2021, ApJS, 257, 43
  • Li (2020) Li, A. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 339
  • Li et al. (2022) Li, J., Venemans, B. P., Walter, F., et al. 2022, ApJ, 930, 27
  • Maloney & Black (1988) Maloney, P., & Black, J. H. 1988, ApJ, 325, 389
  • Mao et al. (2000) Mao, R. Q., Henkel, C., Schulz, A., et al. 2000, A&A, 358, 433
  • McQuinn et al. (2017) McQuinn, K. B. W., Skillman, E. D., Dolphin, A. E., Berg, D., & Kennicutt, R. 2017, AJ, 154, 51
  • Monachesi et al. (2016) Monachesi, A., Bell, E. F., Radburn-Smith, D. J., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 1419
  • Mullaney et al. (2011) Mullaney, J. R., Alexander, D. M., Goulding, A. D., & Hickox, R. C. 2011, MNRAS, 414, 1082
  • Nakajima et al. (2018) Nakajima, T., Takano, S., Kohno, K., Harada, N., & Herbst, E. 2018, PASJ, 70, 7
  • NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (2019) NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database. 2019, NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED), IPAC, doi:10.26132/NED1. https://catcopy.ipac.caltech.edu/dois/doi.php?id=10.26132/NED1
  • Nasonova et al. (2011) Nasonova, O. G., de Freitas Pacheco, J. A., & Karachentsev, I. D. 2011, A&A, 532, A104
  • Nguyen-Luong et al. (2016) Nguyen-Luong, Q., Nguyen, H. V. V., Motte, F., et al. 2016, ApJ, 833, 23
  • Nishiyama et al. (2001) Nishiyama, K., Nakai, N., & Kuno, N. 2001, PASJ, 53, 757
  • Onodera et al. (2010) Onodera, S., Kuno, N., Tosaki, T., et al. 2010, ApJ, 722, L127
  • Paglione et al. (2001) Paglione, T. A. D., Wall, W. F., Young, J. S., et al. 2001, ApJS, 135, 183
  • Pejcha & Prieto (2015) Pejcha, O., & Prieto, J. L. 2015, ApJ, 799, 215
  • Pety (2005) Pety, J. 2005, in SF2A-2005: Semaine de l’Astrophysique Francaise, ed. F. Casoli, T. Contini, J. M. Hameury, & L. Pagani, 721
  • Popescu et al. (2000) Popescu, C. C., Misiriotis, A., Kylafis, N. D., Tuffs, R. J., & Fischera, J. 2000, A&A, 362, 138
  • Povich et al. (2007) Povich, M. S., Stone, J. M., Churchwell, E., et al. 2007, ApJ, 660, 346
  • Radburn-Smith et al. (2011) Radburn-Smith, D. J., de Jong, R. S., Seth, A. C., et al. 2011, ApJS, 195, 18
  • Rho et al. (2006) Rho, J., Reach, W. T., Lefloch, B., & Fazio, G. G. 2006, ApJ, 643, 965
  • Roche et al. (1991) Roche, P. F., Aitken, D. K., Smith, C. H., & Ward, M. J. 1991, MNRAS, 248, 606
  • Sabbi et al. (2018) Sabbi, E., Calzetti, D., Ubeda, L., et al. 2018, ApJS, 235, 23
  • Sajina et al. (2008) Sajina, A., Yan, L., Lutz, D., et al. 2008, ApJ, 683, 659
  • Salvestrini et al. (2022) Salvestrini, F., Gruppioni, C., Hatziminaoglou, E., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2203.15825
  • Sanders et al. (2003) Sanders, D. B., Mazzarella, J. M., Kim, D. C., Surace, J. A., & Soifer, B. T. 2003, AJ, 126, 1607
  • Sandstrom et al. (2010) Sandstrom, K. M., Bolatto, A. D., Draine, B. T., Bot, C., & Stanimirović, S. 2010, ApJ, 715, 701
  • Sandstrom et al. (2012) Sandstrom, K. M., Bolatto, A. D., Bot, C., et al. 2012, ApJ, 744, 20
  • Schinnerer et al. (2013) Schinnerer, E., Meidt, S. E., Pety, J., et al. 2013, ApJ, 779, 42
  • Schmidt (1959) Schmidt, M. 1959, ApJ, 129, 243
  • Shan et al. (2012) Shan, W., Yang, J., Shi, S., et al. 2012, IEEE Transactions on Terahertz Science and Technology, 2, 593
  • Shetty et al. (2013) Shetty, R., Kelly, B. C., & Bigiel, F. 2013, MNRAS, 430, 288
  • Shi et al. (2011) Shi, Y., Helou, G., Yan, L., et al. 2011, ApJ, 733, 87
  • Shi et al. (2018) Shi, Y., Yan, L., Armus, L., et al. 2018, ApJ, 853, 149
  • Shipley et al. (2013) Shipley, H. V., Papovich, C., Rieke, G. H., et al. 2013, ApJ, 769, 75
  • Skrutskie et al. (2003) Skrutskie, M. F., Cutri, R. M., Stiening, R., et al. 2003, 2MASS All-Sky Point Source Catalog, IPAC, doi:10.26131/IRSA2. https://catcopy.ipac.caltech.edu/dois/doi.php?id=10.26131/IRSA2
  • Sliwa et al. (2012) Sliwa, K., Wilson, C. D., Petitpas, G. R., et al. 2012, ApJ, 753, 46
  • Smith et al. (2007) Smith, J. D. T., Draine, B. T., Dale, D. A., et al. 2007, ApJ, 656, 770
  • Solomon et al. (1997) Solomon, P. M., Downes, D., Radford, S. J. E., & Barrett, J. W. 1997, ApJ, 478, 144
  • Sorai et al. (2019) Sorai, K., Kuno, N., Muraoka, K., et al. 2019, PASJ, 71, S14
  • Sorce et al. (2014) Sorce, J. G., Tully, R. B., Courtois, H. M., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 527
  • Su et al. (2019) Su, Y., Yang, J., Zhang, S., et al. 2019, ApJS, 240, 9
  • Tan et al. (2011) Tan, Q.-H., Gao, Y., Zhang, Z.-Y., & Xia, X.-Y. 2011, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 11, 787
  • Tan et al. (2018) Tan, Q.-H., Gao, Y., Zhang, Z.-Y., et al. 2018, ApJ, 860, 165
  • Tommasin et al. (2010) Tommasin, S., Spinoglio, L., Malkan, M. A., & Fazio, G. 2010, ApJ, 709, 1257
  • Tully et al. (2016) Tully, R. B., Courtois, H. M., & Sorce, J. G. 2016, AJ, 152, 50
  • Tully et al. (2013) Tully, R. B., Courtois, H. M., Dolphin, A. E., et al. 2013, AJ, 146, 86
  • Vacca et al. (2015) Vacca, W. D., Hamilton, R. T., Savage, M., et al. 2015, ApJ, 804, 66
  • Valiante et al. (2007) Valiante, E., Lutz, D., Sturm, E., et al. 2007, ApJ, 660, 1060
  • Vega et al. (2010) Vega, O., Bressan, A., Panuzzo, P., et al. 2010, ApJ, 721, 1090
  • Villaume et al. (2015) Villaume, A., Conroy, C., & Johnson, B. D. 2015, ApJ, 806, 82
  • White & Rees (1978) White, S. D. M., & Rees, M. J. 1978, MNRAS, 183, 341
  • Wilson et al. (2012) Wilson, C. D., Warren, B. E., Israel, F. P., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 424, 3050
  • Wilson et al. (2009) Wilson, T. L., Rohlfs, K., & Hüttemeister, S. 2009, Tools of Radio Astronomy, doi:10.1007/978-3-540-85122-6
  • WISE Team (2020) WISE Team. 2020, AllWISE Atlas (L3a) Coadd Images, IPAC, doi:10.26131/IRSA153. https://catcopy.ipac.caltech.edu/dois/doi.php?id=10.26131/IRSA153
  • Wright et al. (2010) Wright, E. L., Eisenhardt, P. R. M., Mainzer, A. K., et al. 2010, AJ, 140, 1868
  • Wu et al. (2005) Wu, J., Evans, Neal J., I., Gao, Y., et al. 2005, ApJ, 635, L173
  • Xie & Ho (2019) Xie, Y., & Ho, L. C. 2019, ApJ, 884, 136