All Figures

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=17.5cm,clip]{fig1.eps} \end{figure}$ Figure 1: Left panel: total (EMOS+EPN) XMM-Newton mosaic image of A478 in the $[0.3{-}7]~\rm{keV}$ energy band. The image is corrected for vignetting and exposure, and background subtracted using blank field data. Right panel: hardness ratio map (ratio of the count rates in the $[1.7{-}7]~\rm keV$ and in the $[0.3{-}1.7]~\rm keV$ energy bands). The smoothed contours of the mosaic image have been overlaid.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7.7cm,clip]{aa0856f2.eps} \end{figure}$ Figure 2: A478 XMM-Newton (EMOS+EPN) surface brightness profile in the $[0.3{-}2.0]~\rm keV$ band. The profile is background subtracted, corrected for vignetting and for the radial variations of the emissivity factor (see text). The best fit KBB gas density model (Eq. (1)), fitted over the $\theta > 0.33\hbox {$^\prime $ }$ region is over-plotted as a solid line. The dotted line is the extrapolation of this model in the central region. Bottom panel: ratio between the data and the model. The dotted lines indicate the $\pm$ 5% level.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8cm,clip]{aa0856f3.eps} \end{figure}$ Figure 3: Same as Fig. 2 with the best fit BBB model (Eq. (2)) fitted over the full radial range.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8cm,clip]{aa0856f4.eps} \end{figure}$ Figure 4: Comparison between the Chandra gas density profile derived by Sun et al. (2003) and the XMM-Newton best fit BBB gas density model (as plotted in Fig. 3). Bottom panel: ratio between the Chandra data and this model.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.5cm,clip]{0856fig5.eps} \end{figure}$ Figure 5: Result of the radial spectral fitting. From top to bottom the temperature (kT), Galactic absorption ( ${N_{\rm H}}$ ), metallicity (Z) and reduced $\chi ^{2}$ for the best fit model. Errors are $1\sigma$ . For the temperature profile the best fit model using Eq. (4) is over-plotted as a dashed line.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.5cm,clip]{fig6.eps} \end{figure}$ Figure 6: IRAS 100 $\mu$ m (Schlegel et al. 1998) in A478 direction. The overplotted contours show the X-ray emission as well as the area covered by our XMM-Newton observation. The vertical and horizontal lines defined the sectors used to cross-check the ${N_{\rm H}}$ profiles (see text).
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.3cm,clip]{0856fig7.eps} \end{figure}$ Figure 7: ${N_{\rm H}}$ profiles derived from XMM-Newton data in the North-East (diamonds), North-West (triangles), South-West (squares) and South-East (crosses) quadrant compared to the azimuthal profile (smoothed - solid line). The two dashed lines are the 3 $\sigma$ error bars (smoothed) associated to the azimuthal profile. The two dotted-dashed lines correspond to the ${N_{\rm H}}$ value estimated from the 100 $\mu$ m IRAS map according to Boulanger et al. (upper line - 1996) and Schlegel et al. (lower line - 1998).
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=18cm,clip]{aa0856f8.eps} \end{figure}$ Figure 8: Temperature profiles corrected for the PSF effect ( left panel), deprojected ( middle panel), PSF corrected and deprojected ( right panel). The data points are the temperatures derived from simultaneous fitting of the annular spectra. The open points are the temperatures obtained by fitting each annular spectrum individually with an isothermal model (Same as in Fig. 5). The dotted line is the analytical model fitted to these data (Eq. (4)). The full lines are the PSF corrected model ( left panel), the deprojected model ( middle panel) and the PSF corrected deprojected model (see Sect. 5.5.3 for details).
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8cm,clip]{aa0856f9.eps} \end{figure}$ Figure 9: Integrated total mass distribution. Filled circle: the reference total mass profile obtained from the best fit BBB model for the gas density profile and the PSF-corrected deprojected model of the temperature profile (errors are $1\sigma$ ). Open circles: mass obtained from the deprojected temperature model profile. Triangles: mass obtained using the deprojected temperature profile derived from the spectral fit. Crosses: mass using the Chandra gas density profile.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8cm,clip]{aa0856f10.eps} \end{figure}$ Figure 10: Modelling of the integrated total mass distribution. Filled circle: total mass profile as in Fig. 9. The errors now include systematic errors due to the PSF correction (see text). The solid line is the best fit NFW profile (c=4.18), the dotted line is the best MQGSL profile and the dashed line is the best fit King model.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8cm,clip]{aa0856f11.eps} \end{figure}$ Figure 11: The integrated gas mass fraction as a function of the radius. The 1 $\sigma$ error bars are obtained from the propagation of the errors over the total mass profile. The gas mass fraction profile computed from the best fit NFW model is plotted as a solid line.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8cm,clip]{aa0856f3.eps} \end{figure}$	Figure 3: Same as Fig. 2 with the best fit BBB model (Eq. (2)) fitted over the full radial range.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8cm,clip]{aa0856f4.eps} \end{figure}$	Figure 4: Comparison between the Chandra gas density profile derived by Sun et al. (2003) and the XMM-Newton best fit BBB gas density model (as plotted in Fig. 3). Bottom panel: ratio between the Chandra data and this model.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.5cm,clip]{0856fig5.eps} \end{figure}$	Figure 5: Result of the radial spectral fitting. From top to bottom the temperature (kT), Galactic absorption ( ${N_{\rm H}}$ ), metallicity (Z) and reduced $\chi ^{2}$ for the best fit model. Errors are $1\sigma$ . For the temperature profile the best fit model using Eq. (4) is over-plotted as a dashed line.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8.5cm,clip]{fig6.eps} \end{figure}$	Figure 6: IRAS 100 $\mu$ m (Schlegel et al. 1998) in A478 direction. The overplotted contours show the X-ray emission as well as the area covered by our XMM-Newton observation. The vertical and horizontal lines defined the sectors used to cross-check the ${N_{\rm H}}$ profiles (see text).
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8cm,clip]{aa0856f10.eps} \end{figure}$	Figure 10: Modelling of the integrated total mass distribution. Filled circle: total mass profile as in Fig. 9. The errors now include systematic errors due to the PSF correction (see text). The solid line is the best fit NFW profile (c=4.18), the dotted line is the best MQGSL profile and the dashed line is the best fit King model.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=8cm,clip]{aa0856f11.eps} \end{figure}$	Figure 11: The integrated gas mass fraction as a function of the radius. The 1 $\sigma$ error bars are obtained from the propagation of the errors over the total mass profile. The gas mass fraction profile computed from the best fit NFW model is plotted as a solid line.
Open with DEXTER