# High- and low energy nonthermal X-ray emission from the cluster of galaxies A 2199

## 1 Introduction

X-ray emission from clusters of galaxies was detected already in the early days of X-ray astronomy. Initially the origin of the emission was not clear: thermal Bremsstrahlung or non-thermal Inverse Compton emission were two common explanations. The detection of iron line emission changed the common interpretation in favour of a thermal origin, although searches for non-thermal X-ray emission have been continued.

Rather surprisingly, the Extreme UltraViolet Explorer (EUVE) found evidence for a soft X-ray excess in two of the brightest and most nearby clusters: Coma (Lieu et al. 1996a ) and Virgo (Lieu et al. 1996b ). Later it was also found in A 1795 (Mittaz et al. (1998)), and Bowyer et al. (1998) mention its detection in A 2199 and A 4038. This soft excess is unrelated to the well-known cooling flow, since it is also observed in Coma (which does not contain a cooling flow) and its relative strength as compared to the thermal component increases outwards for three of the five clusters. Detailed modelling favours a non-thermal origin for the soft excess, for instance inverse-Compton (IC) emission by cosmic ray electrons on the cosmic microwave background radiation (see e.g. Sarazin and Lieu (1998)).

At the high-energy part of the spectrum, the high sensitivity of the PDS instrument aboard BeppoSAX allowed the detection of a hard excess in A 2199 (Kaastra et al. (1998)) and Coma (Fusco-Femiano et al. (1999)). In the case of Coma, the data are consistent with the IC interpretation and with the radio spectrum (Fusco-Femiano et al. (1999); Lieu et al. (1999)).

In this paper we analyze the X-ray data from A 2199, a cluster where both a soft and hard excess was reported. A 2199 is a bright cooling-flow cluster at redshift 0.0303, with a very low galactic column density of $`8.1\times 10^{23}`$ m<sup>-2</sup>, as measured accurately by one of us (Lockman). This allows the spectrum to be observed down to energies of $``$0.1 keV. We use data obtained by all narrow-field instruments of BeppoSAX, the DS instrument aboard of EUVE and the ROSAT PSPC detector.

## 2 Data reduction

For the purpose of our data analysis, the cluster was divided into 7 concentric annuli, centered around the bright cD galaxy, with outer radii of 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18 and 24′. The cooling flow is almost completely contained within the central annulus (0.16 Mpc). We use $`H_0=50`$ km s<sup>-1</sup> Mpc<sup>-1</sup> and $`q_0=0.5`$ throughout this paper.

The instruments of BeppoSAX are described by Boella et al. (1997) and references therein. Briefly, the LECS (1 instrument) and MECS (3 nearly identical instruments) are imaging GSPCs with an energy resolution that varies between 0.05–0.7 keV for energies between 0.1–10 keV (LECS) and 0.2–0.6 keV for energies between 1–10 keV (MECS). The spatial resolution is of the order of an arcminute but degrades towards low energies. The HPGSPC and PDS (12–100 keV) are non-imaging, collimated detectors suited for observing medium (above 4 keV) and high-energy (above 12 keV) X-rays, respectively.

The BeppoSAX observations were obtained between 21–23 April 1997 with an effective exposure time of 100 ks for the MECS instrument. LECS spectra were extracted for the 6 annuli within 18′, and MECS spectra for all 7 annuli. All subsequent data analysis and background subtraction was done using the January 1999 calibration release of BeppoSAX.

The background for the LECS and MECS spectra was subtracted using the standard background files taken at empty fields at high galactic latitude. The background consists of a cosmic X-ray and a particle contribution. The total MECS background during the week of observation was constant, 0.187$`\pm `$0.004 c/s, and within its statistical uncertainty of 2 % consistent with the long-term (3 months) background (0.191$`\pm `$0.001 c/s). This background is at the same level of the average background of the blank fields of Deep SAX exposures (0.187 c/s). The MECS spectra were extracted for the individual units separately and combined after background subtraction.

The January 1999 SAXDAS release has been used for the effective area, point-spread function and vignetting of the MECS data. Strongback obscuration effects in the MECS have been taken into account by assuming 550 $`\mu `$m of Be with a geometry as described by Boella et al. (1997), in addition to the 50 $`\mu `$m that is present for the entire field of view. Note that near the strongback around 10′ off-axis there may be some systematic uncertainty of at most 20 % in the transmission of the strongback, due to lacking calibration data. The vignetting correction for the LECS was derived from the SAXDAS/LEMAT raytrace code, assuming azimuthal symmetry around the appropriate center. The correction for the support grid was also derived from that package. The effects of vignetting and strongback obscuration for the MECS and LECS data have been taken into account in the response matrices created for this observation. Collimator vignetting for the HPGSPC and PDS have also been taken into account. The spectral data for each instrument and region have been rebinned to one third of the FWHM and in regions with poorer statistics even more. Contamination by the nearby AGN EXO 1627.3+4014 (at 32′ from the core of A 2199) in the PDS spectrum is unlikely given its steep X-ray spectrum (photon index 3, cf. Rosat Bright Source Catalog).

The EUVE data were obtained in 1997 (June 16-18), with an effective exposure time of 49 ks. Data from the central 3′ annulus were omitted from the analysis since this region contains the dead spot of the DS detector. We used data for the 4 annuli between 3–15′. Outside that radius the signal is too weak.

The ROSAT PSPC data were obtained during the PV phase of ROSAT on 18–19 July 1990 with an exposure time of 8.6 ks. The PSPC data were rebinned into 12 data channels with a width of about 1/3 of the instrumental FWHM and only data from channel 47–198 (about 0.39–1.98 keV) were used. The reason for omitting the lowest PSPC data channels is that we were not able to obtain spectral fits that are consistent with the LECS and EUVE data if this energy range is included. The PSPC calibration for very soft sources is known to be problematic in this energy range, and moreover the PSPC spectral resolution is twice as poor as the LECS spectral resolution in the same energy band. A systematic error of 1 % was added to the count rate for all data channels. Rosat spectra were extracted for the 6 annuli within a radius of 18′, and also for an additional annulus between 25–28′. In between there is too much uncertainty due to the strongback structure of the PSPC detector.

The point-spread function (psf) of the LECS and MECS instruments is a sensitive function of energy. For example, for the LECS the 50% encircled energy radius varies from 4′ at 0.2 keV to 1.2′ at 8 keV. The core radius and the size of the cooling flow is about 2′ (Jones and Forman (1984); Siddiqui et al. (1998)), and the shape of the psf is similar to the shape of the cluster radial profile: in fact, the MECS psf is parameterized as the sum of a gaussian and a King profile. Therefore the spectra of the different annuli need to be fitted simultaneously, taking into account the energy-dependent overlap of the response for the different regions. We have taken this overlap into account in the response matrix used for the spectral fitting. Briefly, we took the vignetting and strongback obscuration into account, and lacking more information we assumed the point-spread function to be constant over the field of view. This last assumption is strictly true only for the central 10′, but since our extraction radii are relatively large as compared to the spatial resolution of the instruments no large errors are made. The on-axis psf of the LECS and MECS were derived from the latest (January 1999) calibration release (see Kaastra et al. (1999) for further details).

Since the spatial resolution of the ROSAT/PSPC and EUVE/DS detectors is better than that of the BeppoSAX instruments, we ignored the response overlap between annuli in those cases. Our final data set consists of 26 spectra from 8 different annuli obtained by 6 different instruments. Spectral analysis was done with version 2.0 of the SPEX package (Kaastra et al. (1996)).

## 3 Spectral analysis

The initial spectral model consists of a thermal plasma in collisional ionisation equilibrium (the Mewe-Kaastra-Liedahl model) for each annulus. We initially assumed the cluster to be isothermal. For the inner regions the possible effects of resonance scattering have also been taken into account for the iron K$`\alpha `$ complex. In addition, a cooling-flow model with partial absorption has been included for the central annulus. The galactic column density was fixed at $`8.1\times 10^{23}`$ m<sup>-2</sup>. Again, more details will be presented by Kaastra et al. (1999).

Our best-fit model has $`\chi ^2=785`$ for 614 degrees of freedom (dof), for a temperature of 4.71$`\pm `$0.13 keV. This fit is formally not acceptable. An inspection of the fit residuals shows that there is excess flux at large radii for both low and high energies. This is illustrated in fig. High- and low energy nonthermal X-ray emission from the cluster of galaxies A 2199, showing that there is a soft excess as compared to the thermal model in the DS data and the LECS data below $`0.2`$ keV, starting from a radius of about 6′ and increasing in relative strength up to 2–3 times the thermal count rate near 15′. Other evidence for spectral softening at large radii is obtained from the ratio of the Einstein IPC to ROSAT PSPC fluxes as derived from archival data. This ratio is constant from 2–12′, but starts decreasing beyond that radius.

Also, there is a hard excess shown by the MECS data above 7–8 keV (fig. High- and low energy nonthermal X-ray emission from the cluster of galaxies A 2199), starting at slightly larger radii than the soft excess and also with increasing relative strength up to 2 times the thermal count rate. Between 9–24′, the total 8–10 keV count rate is 5.4$`\pm `$0.6 counts/ks, while the best-fit thermal model predicts only 3.4 counts/ks. For comparison, the subtracted background is 38.2 counts/ks, of which 33.4 counts/ks can be attributed to the particle background. The hard excess is consistent with the PDS data: the observed 17–100 keV PDS count rate is 0.090$`\pm `$0.024 c/s, while the thermal model predicts only 0.038 c/s. The uncertainties on the PDS data are not sufficient to prove by themselve the existence of the hard X-ray tail in view of the systematic uncertainties in the PDS background subtraction. Based upon the source distribution in the HEAO-1 A4 all sky survey, the probability to find an extragalactic hard X-ray source of this strength in the PDS-FOV around A2199 is only $``$10 %. From a map of the observed hardness ratio as obtained by the MECS instrument we can conclude that the hard excess is not due to a few discrete point sources in the field of view, but is distributed over all azimuthal angles.

The hard tail is the dominant component outside radii of about 12′ at energies above 8–10 keV. Could the hard tail have been observed before with collimated instruments like EXOSAT or GINGA? The answer is: probably not. For example, in the 8–10 keV band it constitutes only a few percent of the total flux. It is only the combination of high sensitivity in the hard X-ray band (the PDS instrument) and the spatially resolved spectroscopy of the MECS that this component is detected. Without spatially resolved spectroscopy a part of the tail would be accomodated for by a slight increase in cluster temperature. This is confirmed by the GINGA/SSS data of White et al. (1994), who measure a temperature of 4.74$`\pm `$0.09 keV, consistent with our present fit, and significantly larger than the ASCA temperature of 4.17$`\pm `$0.11 keV in the 3–11′ range (Mushotzky et al. (1996)).

In order to have a better understanding of the hard- and soft excess emission, we extended our spectral model with a power law component in the outer radial zones. The photon index of this power law was kept the same for all regions. The best-fit value for this photon index is 1.81$`\pm `$0.25. The power law component reproduces the hard excess of the spectrum as well as a part of the soft excess. We did not include the 25–28′ annulus in our spectral fit, since only ROSAT PSPC data were available for this region. However, the spectral shape of these outermost PSPC data was consistent with our spectral model in the 18–24′ annulus, and we used the PSPC data to estimate the luminosity in this region. The total 0.1–100 keV luminosity of the power law component integrated over the cluster is $`(1.30\pm 0.32)\times 10^{37}`$ W, to be compared to $`(6.2\pm 0.5)\times 10^{37}`$ W for the hot isothermal component and $`(1.11\pm 0.15)\times 10^{37}`$ W for the cooling flow.

We also need an additional soft component in the 6–12′ annuli in order to represent the DS and LECS flux in the 0.1–0.3 keV band. Due to the poor spectral resolution at low energies the shape of this additional soft component is not well constrained; we obtained good results using a narrow line feature at 0.19$`\pm `$0.01 keV, but other spectral shapes can also represent the data reasonably. The additional soft component has an absorption-corrected luminosity of $`(1.2\pm 0.3)\times 10^{36}`$ W in the 0.1–0.3 keV band, with approximately equal luminosity in the 6–9′ and 9–12′ annuli. This luminosity is 25 % larger than the luminosity of the thermal component in the same annuli. In this 6–12′ region and 0.1–0.3 keV spectral band the subtracted LECS background is smaller than 15 % of the cluster signal, while the large scale variations of the background in this region of the sky are less than 10 % of this background.

The $`\chi ^2`$ value for our fit is 728 for 604 degrees of freedom, an improvement of 57 at the cost of only 10 additional parameters. Using an F-test we find that the excess emission is significant at the $`1.8\times 10^6`$ confidence level. The soft component in the 6–12′ annuli alone is significant at the $`9.2\times 10^5`$ confidence level, and the power law component alone is significant at the 0.0024 confidence level.

The best-fit temperature for the isothermal component of 4.58$`\pm `$0.11 keV is lower than the value we obtained before in our fit without the power law component.

## 4 Interpretation

Our analysis has shown that there is both a soft and hard excess in the X-ray spectrum of A 2199. Most of this excess emission can be explained by a power law component with photon index $``$1.8 that dominates the cluster luminosity outside a radius of 12′ (640 kpc). If the photon index is higher in the 6–12′ region, this could explain a part of the additional soft excess found in that region. Otherwise this additional component is distinct from the power law. Its spectral shape is not well constrained, however its luminosity in the soft 0.1–0.3 keV band is larger than the thermal luminosity in the same energy band.

It is not likely that the hard excess has a thermal origin. In that case the temperature in the outer regions must be larger than 10 keV (Kaastra et al. (1998)); this would imply that the average energy of the iron K$`\alpha `$ line complex should increase by more than 100 eV from the center of the cluster towards the edge; however the observed centroid of the K$`\alpha `$ blend decreases by 60$`\pm `$70 eV from the center towards the 9–15′ region (consistent with temperatures between 1–5 keV), hence a large temperature increase can be excluded. Moreover, in many nearby clusters a temperature decrease by a factor of $`2`$ from the center out to 6 core radii is observed (Markevitch et al. (1998)). If such a gradient would also be present in A 2199, the hard excess would be even stronger.

The hard excess alone can be explained by nonthermal Bremsstrahlung from a suprathermal tail in the electron distribution (Kaastra et al. (1998)); however it is not obvious how to explain the large luminosity associated with it. Also, although the soft excess alone can be explained by thermal radiation from very cool gas, it requires an unrealistically large amount of rapidly cooling gas (Mittaz et al. (1998)).

Given the single power law fit to both the soft and hard excess, it is more natural to explain the observed excess by the IC emission process proposed by Sarazin and Lieu (1998). Such a model was successfully applied to the soft and hard excess in Coma (Lieu et al. (1999)), although it may have problems with Virgo (Reynolds et al. (1999)).

Currently the best-fit single power-law index of 1.81 agrees with that of Coma (Lieu et al. (1999)); both implying a number index of the relativistic electrons of $``$2.62, consistent with the cosmic ray index. A consequence of the large pressure ratio of cosmic ray protons to electrons is that when the IC luminosity is comparable to that of the thermal X-rays, the cosmic rays are in approximate equipartition with the virialized gas (Lieu et al. (1999)). The breakdown of luminosity values given above suggest that A2199, like Coma, is in such a limit. The radially rising relative importance of the IC emission, a phenomenon which has not yet been established for Coma but was found to be present in another cluster (A1795; Mittaz et al. (1998)), also follows naturally from the IC model (Sarazin and Lieu (1998)) as a density scaling effect. A major unresolved puzzle, however, concerns the electrons responsible for the hard excess, as they have an energy of $``$4 GeV and a resulting IC lifetime of $`3\times 10^8`$ years. These electrons have to be replenished by a continuous acceleration process.

A copious source of relativistic electrons in this energy range is available, without the need for an unrealistically high cosmic ray pressure, via the decay of pions produced by proton-proton collisions between intracluster cosmic rays and gas. While in the case of a restricted injection epoch the secondaries are not generated rapidly enough to compete against synchrotron and inverse-Compton losses, this difficulty no longer exists if the cosmic rays have been continuously accelerated by, e.g., intracluster shocks associated with an on-going merger process or long-duration activity by the central radio galaxy. Moreover the power spectral index also falls within the range of observed values. An outline of the model may be found in Blasi and Colafrancesco (1999), while detailed development of it is currently in progress.

Another important consequence of the present data is that in the outer parts of the cluster the contribution from the thermal component is smaller than previously thought. We have fitted a $`\beta `$-model to the emission measures of the thermal component, and find a best fit for $`\beta =0.78\pm 0.15`$, a core radius of 3.7′$`\pm `$0.9′ and a central hydrogen density of 5.9$`\times 10^3`$ m<sup>-3</sup> (excluding the cooling flow contribution). This should be compared to e.g. the fit of the ROSAT PSPC data by Siddiqui et al. (1998), who find $`\beta =0.62\pm 0.05`$ with a core radius of 2.3′$`\pm `$0.8′. The larger value for $`\beta `$ is caused by the lower thermal contribution at large radii, the larger error bars are due to the intrinsic uncertainty in the precise correction for the non-thermal flux. There are important consequences for the mass distribution within the cluster: our parameters yield within 1.8 Mpc (34′) a total gas mass of 7.9$`\times 10^{13}`$ M and a total gravitational mass of 6.8$`\times 10^{14}`$ M, a 20 % lower and 35 % higher than the mass obtained from the PSPC data of Siddiqui et al. (1998), respectively. Therefore the gas fraction is 40 % lower than inferred from previous data.

## 5 Conclusions

The detection of a soft and hard X-ray excess in A 2199 has important consequences for the study of this and other clusters. We demonstrated how the excess may be explained as an IC effect, and how further investigations of this phenomenon are vital towards understanding of cluster evolution - the history of particle acceleration and interplay between thermal and non-thermal components are now revealed to be much richer than previously thought.

SRON is supported financially by NWO, the Netherlands foundation for Scientific Research. We thank the referee for several constructive comments and suggestions that helped us in clarifying the presentation of our results. We thank S. Molendi for providing us with necessary calibration information.