# MASS PROFILES OF THE TYPICAL RELAXED GALAXY CLUSTERS A2199 AND A496

## 1. INTRODUCTION

Under a reasonable, but as yet not directly tested, set of assumptions that the hot intracluster gas is supported by its own thermal pressure and is in hydrostatic equilibrium in the cluster gravitational well, one can determine the total mass of a cluster, including its dominant dark matter component (Bahcall & Sarazin 1977; Mathews 1978). Because clusters are the largest collapsed objects in the Universe, their mass values are of great importance for cosmology. The cluster mass function and its evolution with redshift constrain the spectrum of the cosmological density fluctuations and the density parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ (e.g., Press & Schechter 1974; White & Rees 1978; Bahcall & Cen 1992; Viana & Liddle 1996). If the cluster matter inventory is representative of the Universe as a whole, as is expected, then by measuring the cluster total and baryonic mass and comparing it to the predictions of primordial nucleosynthesis, one can constrain $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ (White et al. 1993). Comparison of independent cluster mass estimates, for example, by X-ray and gravitational lensing (e.g., Bartelmann & Narayan 1995) methods, provide unique insights into cluster structure and physics. A discrepancy between the different estimates may indicate significant turbulence or nonthermal pressure in the intracluster gas (e.g., Loeb & Mao 1994), or the effect of line of sight projections.

For an X-ray measurement of the cluster mass, one needs accurate radial profiles of the gas density and temperature, as well as confidence that the cluster is in hydrostatic equilibrium. The gas density profile for a symmetric cluster can readily be obtained with an imaging instrument, such as Einstein or ROSAT. Obtaining temperature distributions has proven to be more problematic, especially for hotter, more massive clusters. ASCA (Tanaka, Inoue, & Holt 1994) now provides spatially resolved temperature data for nearby hot clusters (e.g., Ikebe et al. 1997; Loewenstein 1997; Donnelly et al. 1998; Markevitch et al. 1998 \[hereafter MFSV\] and references therein), although their accuracy is still limited. Outside the central cooling flow regions, the temperature decreases with radius in most studied clusters. For a few clusters with more accurate temperature profiles, accurate mass profiles were already obtained (e.g., for A2256 by Markevitch & Vikhlinin 1997, hereafter MV).

MFSV found that gas temperature profiles of nearby symmetric clusters outside the cooling flow regions are similar when scaled by the virial radius and average temperature. The gas density profiles also are rather similar (e.g., Jones & Forman 1984; Vikhlinin, Forman, & Jones 1999). This suggests that the underlying dark matter profiles are similar. Indeed, analytical work and cosmological cluster simulations (e.g., Bertschinger 1985; Cole & Lacey 1996; Navarro, Frenk, & White 1995, 1997, hereafter NFW) predict that the dark matter radial profiles of most clusters in equilibrium should be similar in units of the virial radius. It is interesting to see whether their predicted “universal” dark matter profile agrees with the observations.

For all but a few clusters in the MFSV sample, the temperature data have insufficient accuracy for such a test. We therefore selected two additional typical, relaxed, but less distant clusters, A2199 ($`z=0.030`$) and A496 ($`z=0.033`$), for a more accurate temperature profile and mass derivation using ASCA. These clusters are very ordinary in their X-ray luminosities and temperatures ($`T4.5`$ keV) and, similarly to most clusters, have moderate cooling flows (170 and 95 $`M_{}`$yr<sup>-1</sup>, respectively; Peres et al. 1998). The presence of cooling flows is suggestive of a relaxed cluster, while at the same time these flows are not so strong as to prevent accurate resolved temperature measurements with ASCA (see MFSV). A subset of the data presented here (observations of the central regions) was already analyzed by Mushotzky et al. (1995). We have since obtained offset observations, and include the ASCA PSF correction in our analysis. Below we use ASCA and ROSAT data on these two clusters to derive their total mass profiles. We use $`H_0`$=50 km s$`^1`$Mpc<sup>-1</sup> ($`h=0.5`$); the error intervals are 90%.

## 2. ROSAT PSPC DATA

To derive the gas density distribution, we use ROSAT PSPC data. The archival observations of A2199 and A496 were analyzed as prescribed by Snowden et al. (1994) and using S. Snowden’s code. To optimize the signal to noise ratio, we used Snowden bands 5–7 that correspond to 0.7–2.0 keV. For A2199, two observations of the same field were combined. The radial brightness profiles were then fit with a $`\beta `$-model $`S_X(r)(1+r^2/a_x^2)^{3\beta +\frac{1}{2}}`$ plus a uniform X-ray background within a radial range of $`3^{}50^{}`$. The inner radius of 3 approximately corresponds to the cooling radius for both clusters (e.g., Peres et al. 1998) and encompasses all of the X-ray brightness excess due to the moderate cooling flows in the cluster centers. The resulting parameters of the gas density profile are given in Table 1 and are typical (e.g., Jones & Forman 1984). The $`\beta `$-model values for A2199 are similar to the results of Siddiqui, Stewart, & Johnstone (1998) using the same data.

## 3. ASCA DATA

A2199 and A496 were each observed by ASCA with one central pointing and two different 14–15 offsets from the cluster centers. Such a configuration has been chosen to cover the cluster to a radius where the mean overdensity is 500 ($`r_{500}`$), while at the same time keeping the cluster brightness peak within the ASCA field of view to avoid stray light contamination. Observing the clusters at different positions in the focal plane also reduces the ASCA systematic uncertainties that dominate in the temperature estimates. The offset positions were chosen to avoid bright foreground sources and also to cover representative regions of these slightly elliptical clusters.

After the standard data screening (ABC Guide<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/asca/abc/abc.html), useful GIS exposures for the A2199 central and offset pointings were 31 ks, 19 ks, and 22 ks, and for A496, they were 37 ks, 24 ks, and 24 ks, respectively (the corresponding SIS exposures were about a factor of 0.8 of the GIS exposures). For the temperature fits, all pointings for both GIS and SIS were used simultaneously; different pointings and instruments fitted separately give consistent results. To derive the spatial temperature distributions, we used the method described in detail in MFSV and references therein. This method accounts for the ASCA PSF and assumes that outside the cooling flow regions, the ROSAT PSPC image provides an accurate description of the relative spatial distribution of the projected gas emission measure, after a correction of the PSPC brightness for any gas temperature variations. It should be mentioned here that a recent discovery of the possibly nonthermal EUV and soft X-ray ($`E<0.2`$ keV) emission in A2199 should not affect the latter assumption in any significant way, since we use a relatively hard ($`0.72.0`$ keV) PSPC band where this excess is absent (Lieu, Bonamente, & Mittaz 1999). The absorption column was assumed uniform at the Galactic values ($`N_H=0.9\times 10^{20}`$ cm<sup>-2</sup> and $`4.6\times 10^{20}`$ cm<sup>-2</sup> for A2199 and A496); for our $`E>1.5`$ keV spectral fitting band, any expected variations are unimportant.

The analysis method propagates all known calibration and other systematic uncertainties, including those of the ASCA PSF, effective area, ROSAT and ASCA backgrounds etc., to the final temperature values. All reported confidence intervals are one-parameter 90% and are estimated by Monte-Carlo simulations.

## 4. RESULTS

### 4.1. Temperature Maps

The resulting two-dimensional projected temperature maps are shown in Fig. 1, overlaid on the ROSAT images. We show only sectors in which the temperature is accurately constrained. The maps show no significant azimuthally asymmetric variations, and together with the brightness contours suggest that these clusters are well relaxed. These maps may be contrasted to the similarly derived, but highly irregular, temperature maps of merging clusters, e.g., A754 (Henriksen & Markevitch 1996) and Cygnus-A and A3667 (Markevitch, Sarazin, & Vikhlinin 1999). In the central regions, the maps clearly show low temperature regions that correspond to the previously known cooling flows (e.g., Stewart et al. 1984; Edge, Stewart, & Fabian 1992).

### 4.2. Radial Temperature Profiles

Figure 2 shows the cluster projected temperature profiles in five annuli. For the central radial bin, we used a model consisting of a thermal component and a cooling flow with the upper temperature tied to that of the thermal component, both with free normalizations. The figure also shows wide-beam, single-temperature fits ($`T_e=4.4\pm 0.2`$ keV and $`4.3\pm 0.2`$ keV for A2199 and A496, respectively) and emission-weighted average temperatures excluding the cooling flow component ($`T_X=4.8\pm 0.2`$ keV and $`4.7\pm 0.2`$ keV). The latter are calculated from these temperature profiles as described in MFSV. The data indicate a higher temperature in the central cluster regions (outside the cooling flows) compared to the average temperature, and a temperature decline with radius. This is similar to other clusters; in fact, when the profiles for A2199 and A496 are plotted in units of $`T_X`$ and virial radius, they lie within the composite profile obtained by MFSV for other nearby, relatively symmetric clusters (Fig. 3). Such typical temperature profiles, together with the typical gas density profiles and the presence of cooling flows, make A2199 and A496 representative examples of relaxed clusters.

Outside the central cooling flow bin, the profiles in Fig. 2 are described remarkably well by a polytrope, $`T_{\mathrm{gas}}\rho _{\mathrm{gas}}^{\gamma 1}`$ (both temperature profiles appear slightly more concave than the polytropic fits, which is probably nothing more than a coincidence; note that they differ in a similar way from the composite profile in Fig. 3). Assuming the ROSAT-derived $`\beta `$-models for $`\rho _{\mathrm{gas}}`$, we find $`\gamma =1.17\pm 0.07`$ and $`\gamma =1.24_{0.11}^{+0.08}`$ for A2199 and A496, respectively. Regardless of whether this fact has any physical meaning or is purely fortuitous, it simplifies the total mass derivation by providing a convenient functional form for the observed temperature profile. We will use it in the next section, but first note that for the mass derivation, one needs a real (three-dimensional) gas temperature profile as opposed to projected on the plane of the sky that we have obtained. We show in Appendix that as long as the gas density follows a $`\beta `$-model and the temperature is proportional to a power of density, a projected polytropic temperature profile differs from the three-dimensional profile only by a normalization. For the best-fit $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ values for A2199 and A496, the projected temperature profiles are factors of 0.94 and 0.92 lower than the three-dimensional profiles, respectively.

## 5. TOTAL MASS PROFILES

For the total mass determination, we will take advantage of the fact that the temperature profiles can be described by a polytropic functional form. ¿From the hydrostatic equilibrium equation for a spherically symmetric gas distribution $`\rho _{\mathrm{gas}}(r)(1+r^2/a_x^2)^{\frac{3}{2}\beta }`$ and a temperature profile $`T\rho _{\mathrm{gas}}^{\gamma 1}`$, the total mass within a radius $`r=xa_x`$ is given by

$$M(r)=3.70\times 10^{13}M_{}\frac{0.60}{\mu }\frac{T(r)}{1\mathrm{keV}}\frac{a_x}{1\mathrm{Mpc}}\frac{3\beta \gamma x^3}{1+x^2}$$
(1)   
(see, e.g., Sarazin 1988). A polytropic temperature decline thus corresponds to the following correction to an isothermal mass estimate $`M_{\mathrm{iso}}`$:

$$\frac{M(r)}{M_{\mathrm{iso}}(r)}=\frac{T(r)}{\overline{T}}\gamma ,$$
(2)   
where $`\overline{T}`$ is the average temperature (see also Ettori & Fabian 1999). To calculate the 90% confidence bands on mass profiles (as well as the confidence intervals on the values of $`\gamma `$ above), we have fitted the polytropic model to the same simulated temperature values in those annuli that were used to calculate the temperature error bars (see MFSV). These fitted polytropic models were substituted into equations (1) and (2) above and 90% confidence intervals of the resulting values were calculated at each radius. The resulting correction factor to the isothermal mass estimate is shown in Fig. 4 as a function of radius. The corresponding profiles of the total mass, $`M`$, and the gas mass fraction, $`f_{\mathrm{gas}}M_{\mathrm{gas}}/M`$, are shown in Fig. 5. The corresponding ratio of the mean total density within a given radius to the critical density at the cluster’s redshift \[$`\rho _c=3H_0^2(1+z)^3/8\pi G`$\] is shown as a function of radius in Fig. 6. For both clusters, our mass profiles correspond to $`r_{1000}1.0`$ Mpc and $`r_{500}1.31.4`$ Mpc (the latter involves extrapolation to a region not covered by the temperature profile, see Fig. 2). Masses and gas fractions at several interesting radii are also given in Table 1. At $`r=1`$ Mpc, Mushotzky et al. (1995) obtained mass estimates of $`2.55\times 10^{14}`$ $`M_{}`$ for A2199 and $`3.05\times 10^{14}`$ $`M_{}`$ for A496. These estimates are close to ours, even though Mushotzky et al. did not apply the ASCA PSF correction in their analysis. From the galaxy velocity data, Girardi et al. (1998) obtained, at $`r=1`$ Mpc, masses of $`5.4_{1.9}^{+2.4}\times 10^{14}`$ $`M_{}`$ for A2199 and $`3.5\pm 1.8\times 10^{14}`$ $`M_{}`$ for A496 (their 68% errors are multiplied by 1.65 to obtain 90% intervals). These are consistent (although for A2199, only marginally) with our more accurate values.

## 6. DISCUSSION

### 6.1. Uncertainty of Our Mass Values

Although the polytropic model is a good representation of the observed temperature profiles, it does not necessarily cover all possibilities that could be consistent with the data. Since our best-fit model adequately represents the temperature and its gradient, the best-fit mass values should be unbiased (as long as the hydrostatic equilibrium assumption is valid). However, at the extremes of the confidence intervals, some other acceptable temperature models may result in slightly different mass profiles. Therefore, our confidence intervals on mass may be underestimated. A more exhaustive method of mass modeling would be to assume a certain functional form of the dark matter profile and find parameter ranges consistent with the data (e.g., Hughes 1989; Henry, Briel, & Nulsen 1993; Loewenstein 1994; MV; Nevalainen et al. 1999a,b). However, for the relatively high-quality data on A2199 and A496, we have chosen a simpler approach with the polytropic models, without giving undue importance to the formal error estimates. Indeed, given the present accuracy of the temperature and density profiles, the formal statistical uncertainties are already too small to be physically meaningful (e.g., MV). Hydrodynamic simulations suggest that systematic uncertainties in the method itself, such as the possible deviations from spherical symmetry and hydrostatic equilibrium (in the form of significant gas bulk motions), can give rise to rms mass errors of about 15–30% (e.g., Evrard, Metzler, & Navarro 1996; Roettiger et al. 1996; see a more detailed discussion in §4.2 of MV). Those simulations included merging clusters in the statistical sample, so the relaxed clusters A2199 and A496 should have mass errors on the lower side of these estimates. Another source of systematic mass uncertainty is the possible deviation of the measured electron temperature from the local mean plasma temperature that enters the hydrostatic equilibrium equation. Markevitch et al. (1996) proposed such nonequality as a possible explanation for an unusually sharp observed temperature gradient in A2163. Later theoretical work (Fox & Loeb 1997; Ettori & Fabian 1998; Chièze, Alimi, & Teyssier 1998; Takizawa 1998) concluded that for relaxed clusters, this effect should not be significant within the radial distances presently accessible for accurate X-ray temperature measurements (about half the virial radius). Therefore, it is safe to assume that the mass values within $`r_{1000}`$ obtained in this paper are unaffected by this complication. Finally, at these low redshifts, the unknown cluster peculiar velocity may introduce a noticeable distance and mass error (e.g., a 1000 km s<sup>-1</sup> velocity would correspond to a 10% error in the calculated mass). To summarize all of the above, the true uncertainty of the masses of A2199 and A496 is probably greater than our formal $`\pm 10`$% estimates and perhaps closer to 20–25% (90% confidence at $`r_{1000}`$), and is dominated by systematics.

### 6.2. The “Universal” Mass Profile

NFW have found that radial density profiles of equilibrium clusters in their cosmological simulations can be approximated by a functional form $`\rho (r)(r/r_s)^1(1+r/r_s)^2`$. This form is a very good description of our observed total mass profiles in the range of radii covered by the temperature data, as shown in Fig. 5. Normalizations and scale radii $`r_s`$ of the NFW profiles were selected to fit the observed mass profiles. For A2199, $`r_s=0.18`$ Mpc, and for A496, $`r_s=0.36`$ Mpc.<sup>2</sup><sup>2</sup>2NFW included only dark matter in their simulations and it is unclear whether the inclusion of gas would significantly change the shape of the mass profiles. If we subtract the gas mass from our total mass profiles (assuming, for example, the currently favored value of $`h=0.65`$), the resulting dark matter profiles are well described by the same functional form with slightly different parameter values. Extrapolating the best-fit NFW profiles to greater radii, we obtain the NFW’s concentration parameter $`cr_{200}/r_s`$ of about 10 and 6 for the two clusters, respectively. According to the NFW’s simulations, $`c`$ and the total mass within $`r_{200}`$ are strongly correlated for a given cosmological model. Our $`c`$ and $`M_{200}`$ values agree well with those for several cosmological models considered by NFW, including CDM$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (for that model, our observed masses correspond to $`M_{200}/M_{}56`$ as defined in NFW). An isothermal profile would imply a less concentrated dark matter distribution than that suggested by the NFW simulations (see also Makino, Sasaki, & Suto 1998). The outer regions of other clusters for which relatively accurate mass profiles were derived from the ASCA temperature profiles (e.g., A2256, MV; A3571, Nevalainen et al. 1999b) are consistent with the NFW profiles as well, although the constraints are poorer. Thus, the similarity of the gas temperature profiles found by MFSV for nearby relaxed clusters (outside the cooling flow regions) appears to be due to the underlying “universal” dark matter profile of the NFW form. Note that we do not consider cooling flow regions due to their unknown temperature structure. As noted in MV and Nevalainen et al. (1999a), in those few relaxed clusters without cooling flows where the gas density profile exhibits a flat core all the way to the center (e.g., A401), the dark matter cannot have an NFW central cusp because the gas halo would be convectively unstable (see also Suto, Sasaki, & Makino 1998). On the other hand, it is likely that in clusters that do have central dark matter cusps, the corresponding dip of the gravitational potential causes the gas density peak and acts as a focus for a cooling flow.

### 6.3. Mass – Temperature Scaling

Our mass values within our $`r_{1000}`$ are a factor of $`1.61.8`$ below the scaling relation between the total mass and emission-weighted average gas temperature derived from the simulations by Evrard et al. (1996). The same is true for other clusters (e.g., A2256, MV; A2029, Sarazin, Wise, & Markevitch 1998; A401, A3571, Nevalainen et al. 1999a,b). Note that isothermal mass estimates are also lower than the Evrard et al. $`MT`$ relation predicts. Given the agreement of our observed total (or dark) mass profile with the “universal” profile from NFW as well as from Evrard et al., the main source of this discrepancy apparently lies in the gas density and temperature distributions. Indeed, as noted by MFSV, simulations predict a less steep temperature decline than observed, and steeper gas density profiles than observed (e.g., Vikhlinin et al. 1999). Both these effects have the sign needed to cause the $`MT`$ discrepancy. Because most of the cluster X-ray emission originates in the central region, simulations that do not sufficiently resolve the cluster core may predict an incorrect (apparently too low) emission-weighted gas temperature. For example, the Evrard et al. (1996) simulations have a resolution of 0.2–0.3 Mpc, comparable to a typical cluster core radius. On the other hand, the hydrostatic mass measurement can underestimate the true total mass if, for example, there is significant gas turbulence. Indeed, simulations suggest that there may be residual turbulence even in an apparently relaxed cluster (e.g., Evrard et al. 1996; Norman & Bryan 1998) resulting in a 10–15% underestimate of the mass within $`rr_{1000}`$.

### 6.4. Implications for the X-ray–Lensing Mass Discrepancy

A2199 and A496 are representative examples of relaxed clusters and the difference in their X-ray mass estimates using the measured temperature profile from the isothermal estimates, shown in Fig. 4, generally applies to other such clusters (see MV and MFSV). The upward revision of the mass estimate in the inner part has one important implication, the convergence of the X-ray and gravitational lensing mass estimates in the cluster central regions. The strong lensing mass values (that usually correspond to $`r<0.2`$ Mpc) often exceed by a factor of 2–3 the X-ray estimates made under the assumptions of isothermality and a typical $`\beta `$-model density profile (e.g., Loeb & Mao 1994; Miralda-Escudé & Babul 1995; Tyson & Fischer 1995). In many cases, the lensing analysis is likely to overestimate the mass as a result of substructure or projection (e.g., Bartelmann 1995). On the X-ray side, some clusters are undergoing mergers and the hydrostatic equilibrium method may give a wrong mass value. For those clusters which are relaxed, the low-resolution X-ray image analysis may underestimate the gas density gradient at small radii typical of the lensing measurements and may be responsible for part of the disagreement (e.g., Markevitch 1997; Allen 1998). If the cluster has a strong cooling flow, the overall temperature can be significantly underestimated if no allowance for the cool component is made (Allen 1998), although for most clusters this correction is within $`20`$% (MFSV). Still, in many cases these effects alone are not sufficient to account for the mass discrepancy. It has been suggested, e.g., by Miralda-Escudé & Babul (1995) that a gas temperature gradient could explain the discrepancy for the distant non-cooling-flow cluster A2218. A temperature decline with radius has indeed been observed in A2218 by Loewenstein (1997) and Cannon, Ponman, & Hobbs (1999) using ASCA, while MFSV find that such a declining profile is common among nearby clusters. The analysis in §5 has shown that within the core radius, the commonly observed temperature gradient implies a mass that is higher than the isothermal estimate by a factor of $`>1.5`$. The reference isothermal estimate uses a cooling flow-corrected temperature, so this effect is in addition to the cooling flow-related mass correction of Allen (1998). If a similar temperature gradient is common in more distant clusters, this effect, together with others mentioned above, effectively resolves the mass discrepancy. This seems to obviate the need for more exotic causes, such as a significant magnetic field pressure or strong turbulence within cluster cores (Loeb & Mao 1994).

### 6.5. Gas Fraction

The lower panels in Fig. 5 show the gas mass fraction a function of radius for the two clusters. At $`r_{1000}`$, we obtain similar values of $`f_{\mathrm{gas}}=0.161\pm 0.014`$ and $`0.158\pm 0.017`$ for the two clusters, respectively. These values are consistent with those for A2256, $`0.14\pm 0.01`$ at $`r_{1000}`$, obtained by MV using an ASCA temperature profile, and for A401 ($`0.18_{0.04}^{+0.02}`$) and A3571 ($`0.16_{0.01}^{+0.03}`$) from Nevalainen et al. (1999a,b). Our values are also similar to the median values for large samples of clusters analyzed using the isothermal assumption: $`f_{\mathrm{gas}}=0.168`$ from Ettori & Fabian (1999, scaled to $`r_{1000}`$), and $`f_{\mathrm{gas}}=0.160`$ from Mohr, Mathiesen, & Evrard (1999, for clusters cooler than 5 keV). The latter similarity is due to the fact that the effect of the radial temperature decline on mass is small at this radius; at greater radii, the isothermal analysis underestimates the gas fraction as Fig. 5 shows. The values of the cluster gas fraction from X-ray analysis are often used to place constraints on the cosmological density parameter ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_0<0.3`$), under the assumption that $`f_{\mathrm{gas}}`$ in clusters is representative of the Universe as a whole (White et al. 1993 and many later works). However, $`f_{\mathrm{gas}}`$ increases with radius even if one assumes a constant gas temperature (e.g., David, Jones, & Forman 1995; Ettori & Fabian 1999), and the true increase is steeper as seen in clusters with measured temperature profiles. Fig. 5 shows that $`f_{\mathrm{gas}}`$ increases by a factor of 3 between the X-ray core radius and $`r_{1000}`$ and does not show any evidence of flattening at large radii and hence asymptotically reaching a universal value. Although at some radius, the cluster must merge continuously into the infalling matter with a cosmic mix of components, that presumably happens at the infall shock radius of $`23r_{1000}`$, well beyond the region presently accessible to accurate measurements. Note that both the dark matter and the gas mass within a given radius, and thus $`f_{\mathrm{gas}}`$, are dominated by the contribution at large radii. Cosmological simulations suggest that at smaller radii, a deviation from the universal $`f_{\mathrm{gas}}`$ value is not large (e.g., Frenk et al. 1996). However, at the present stage, the simulations do not accurately reproduce the observed gas density, temperature and $`f_{\mathrm{gas}}`$ profiles (e.g., MFSV; Vikhlinin et al. 1999). We conclude that our $`f_{\mathrm{gas}}`$ values for A2199 and A496 are consistent with the constraints on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ derived in earlier works (e.g., Ettori & Fabian 1999; Mohr et al. 1999), but caution that such estimates at present involve a large extrapolation. Future observatories Chandra and XMM will be capable of studying the cluster outermost regions and possibly determining the asymptotic value of $`f_{\mathrm{gas}}`$.

## 7. SUMMARY

The ASCA gas temperature maps and radial profiles for A2199 and A496 indicate that these systems are representative examples of relaxed, moderately massive clusters. Our high quality temperature data imply total mass profiles that are in good agreement with the NFW simulated “universal” profile over the range of radii covered by the data ($`0.1\mathrm{Mpc}<r<r_{1000}1\mathrm{Mpc}`$). Because the temperature profiles of these two clusters are similar to the average profile for a large sample of nearby clusters in MFSV, this agreement indicates that the NFW profile is indeed common in nearby clusters. The upward revision of the total mass at small radii, by a factor of $`>1.5`$ compared to an isothermal analysis, may reconcile X-ray and strong lensing mass estimates in distant clusters. The observed mass profile also implies a gas mass fraction profile steeply rising with radius. While our $`f_{\mathrm{gas}}`$ values at $`r_{1000}`$ support earlier upper limits on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$, the steep increase of $`f_{\mathrm{gas}}`$ with radius, not anticipated by most cluster simulations, suggests that we may not yet have correctly determined the universal baryon fraction and caution is needed in such analysis.

This work was supported by NASA contracts and grants NAS8-39073, NAG5-3057, NAG5-4516, NAG5-8390, and by the Smithsonian Institution.    

## Appendix A PROJECTION OF THE POLYTROPIC GAS TEMPERATURE PROFILE

Assuming a spherically symmetric gas density distribution of the form $`\rho (r)(1+r^2/a^2)^{\frac{3}{2}\beta }`$ (and taking $`a=1`$ for clarity) and the polytropic temperature profile

$$T(r)\rho ^{\gamma 1}(r),$$
(A1)   
one can calculate a temperature profile that is emission-weighted (by $`\rho ^2`$) along the line of sight $`l`$, as a function of the projected distance from the center $`x`$ (such that $`r^2=x^2+l^2`$), as

$$T_{\mathrm{proj}}(x)=\frac{_0^{\mathrm{}}T(r)\rho ^2(r)𝑑l}{_0^{\mathrm{}}\rho ^2(r)𝑑l}\frac{_0^{\mathrm{}}\rho ^{1+\gamma }(r)𝑑l}{_0^{\mathrm{}}\rho ^2(r)𝑑l}\frac{_0^{\mathrm{}}(1+x^2+l^2)^{\frac{3}{2}\beta (1+\gamma )}𝑑l}{_0^{\mathrm{}}(1+x^2+l^2)^{3\beta }𝑑l}\frac{(1+x^2)^{\frac{3}{2}\beta (1+\gamma )+\frac{1}{2}}}{(1+x^2)^{3\beta +\frac{1}{2}}}=(1+x^2)^{\frac{3}{2}\beta (\gamma 1)}T(x).$$
(A2)   
That is, the resulting projected temperature profile has the same shape as the real (three-dimensional) profile in eq. (A1). The relative normalization of the projected profile at $`x=0`$ (and, therefore, at all radii) can easily be derived using the above formulae and is found to be:

$$\frac{T_{\mathrm{proj}}}{T}=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left[\frac{3}{2}\beta (1+\gamma )\frac{1}{2}\right]\mathrm{\Gamma }(3\beta )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left[\frac{3}{2}\beta (1+\gamma )\right]\mathrm{\Gamma }(3\beta \frac{1}{2})}.$$
(A3)   
The normalization of the projected temperature profile is slightly smaller than that of the three-dimensional profile. For $`\beta >0.5`$ and $`\gamma <5/3`$, their difference is less than $`20`$%. Strictly speaking, different temperatures along the line of sight are not simply weighted with $`\rho ^2`$; to obtain an exact projected temperature, a single-temperature fit to a multi-temperature spectrum should be performed in the ASCA energy band. However, the above similarity of the projected and real profiles holds for any weighting that is proportional to $`\rho ^2T^\alpha `$, which approximates a wide range of possibilities. The normalization (A3) changes only weakly if $`\alpha 0`$. For example, taking $`\alpha =0.5`$ (weighting with a bolometric emissivity) instead of $`\alpha =0`$ changes the normalization for our clusters by only 1%, and by less than 5% for any reasonable $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$. We have therefore assumed $`\alpha =0`$ in §4.2 for simplicity.