EDP Sciences Journals List
Advanced Search
Subscriber Authentication Point
Home All issues

Free access article

   

Table E.1:

Comparison of existing CIRB estimates in the FIR range. The error estimates quoted by the authors are shown in parenthesis. In our case, we include only the statistical uncertainty.
$\lambda$ $I_{\nu}$ Reference Instrument
($\mu $m) (MJy sr-1)    
90 <2.3 this paper ISO/ISOPHOT
150/180 1.08 (0.32)2 this paper ISO/ISOPHOT
100 <1.11 Hauser et al. 1998 COBE/DIRBE
  0.73 (0.20)1    
100 0.37 (0.10) Dwek et al. 1998 COBE/DIRBE
100 0.78 (0.20) Lagache et al. 2000 COBE/DIRBE
100 0.83 (0.27) Finkbeiner et al. 2000 COBE/DIRBE
140 1.49 (0.33) Schlegel et al. 1998 COBE/DIRBE
140 1.17 (0.33) Hauser et al. 1998 COBE/DIRBE
140 0.70 (0.28) Hauser et al. 1998 COBE/FIRAS
140 0.70 (0.28) Lagache et al. 1999 COBE/DIRBE
140 1.12 (0.56) Lagache et al. 2000 COBE/DIRBE
140 1.17 (0.37) Odegard et al. 2007 COBE/DIRBE
240 1.36 (0.16) Schlegel et al. 1998 COBE/DIRBE
240 1.12 (0.24) Hauser et al. 1998 COBE/DIRBE
240 1.04 (0.16) Hauser et al. 1998 COBE/FIRAS
240 0.88 (0.16) Lagache et al. 1999 COBE/DIRBE
240 0.88 (0.56) Lagache et al. 2000 COBE/DIRBE
240 1.04 (0.24) Odegard et al. 2007 COBE/DIRBE
1 Hauser et al. did not claim detection at 100 $\mu $m, because the CIRB signal failed
test for isotropy; 2 only the statistical error is quoted.

Source LaTeX | All tables | In the text