All Figures

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=6.5cm,clip]{9538_f1.ps} \end{figure}$ Figure 1: Distribution of selected clusters in the redshift-temperature space. We distinguish cool core (blue), non cool core (red) and uncertain (green) clusters, as defined in Sect. 6. There is no evidence of selection effects, except for a weak positive correlation between redshift and temperature.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=3.6cm,clip]{9538_f2a.ps}\hspace*{0.9cm} \includegraphics[width=3.5cm,clip]{9538_f2b.ps} \end{figure}$ Figure 2: Histograms of the frequency distribution for averaged MOS exposure time ( left panel) and $R_{\rm SB}$ ( right panel) values.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[angle=270,width=7.6cm,clip]{9538_f3a.ps}\hspace*{4mm} \includegraphics[angle=270,width=7.6cm,clip]{9538_f3b.ps} \end{figure}$ Figure 3: Spectra and best fit models for the 1 $^\prime$ -1.5 $^\prime$ ( left) and the 4.5 $^\prime$ -6 $^\prime$ ( right) rings of Abell 1689. The solid thick and the dotted thick lines respectively represent the thermal and the total background model. The solid thin line represents the total (i.e. thermal + background) model. In the inner ring, source counts dominate background ones, in the outer the opposite is true.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=6.5cm,clip]{9538_f4.ps} \end{figure}$ Figure 4: Radial temperature profiles for all clusters in our sample rescaled by R₁₈₀ and ${k}T_{\rm M}$ .
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7cm,clip]{9538_f5.ps} \end{figure}$ Figure 5: Temperature vs. radius for the innermost ring respectively scaled by ${k}T_{\rm M}$ and R₁₈₀. Clusters for which the temperature is significantly (at least $3 \sigma$ ) lower than ${k}T_{\rm M}$ are defined as cool cores (blue circles); those for which the temperature profile does not significantly (at least $2 \sigma$ ) decrease are defined as non cool cores (red circles); other clusters, whose membership is not clearly determined, are classified as uncertain (green circles). When considering z>0.2 clusters, which fill the right side of the panel, we expect smaller gradients due to the lower spatial resolution.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=6.5cm,clip]{9538_f6.ps} \end{figure}$ Figure 6: Mean radial temperature profile rescaled by R₁₈₀ and ${k}T_{\rm M}$ . The dotted lines show the one-sigma scatter of the values around the average.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=6.7cm,clip]{9538_f7.ps} \end{figure}$ Figure 7: Relative differences between measured and input values for the source temperature, kT, and normalization, $N_{\rm S}$ , as a function of the factor F, which simulates the fluctuation due to the cosmic variance (see text for details). Uncertainties are smaller than the circle size. 30% fluctuations cause $\approx$ 10% variations in kT and $N_{\rm S}$ . For a positive/negative fluctuation, the measured kT and $N_{\rm S}$ are higher/lower than the input values.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=6.7cm,clip]{9538_f8.ps} \end{figure}$ Figure 8: Relative differences between measured and input values for the normalization of background components (namely $N_{\rm HALO}$ , $N_{\rm CXB}$ , and $N_{\rm NXB}$ ) as a function of the input value for cluster normalization in $R_{\rm ext}$ , $N_{\rm S}^{\rm ext}$ . Uncertainties are smaller than the symbol size, and $N_{\rm CXB}$ shows the strongest (negative) correlation with $N_{\rm S}^{\rm ext}$ .
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=6.7cm,clip]{9538_f9.ps} \end{figure}$ Figure 9: Relative differences between measured and input values for the source temperature, kT, and normalization, $N_{\rm S}$ , as a function of the input value for cluster normalization in $R_{\rm ext}$ , $N_{\rm S}^{\rm ext}$ . Uncertainties are smaller than the symbol size. An underestimate/overestimate of $N_{\rm S}^{\rm ext}$ causes kT and $N_{\rm S}$ to be underestimated/overestimated.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=6.7cm,clip]{9538_f10.ps} \end{figure}$ Figure 10: Relative differences between measured and input values for the source temperature, kT, and normalization, $N_{\rm S}$ , as a function of the input value for the QSP contribution, $R_{\rm SB}$ . Uncertainties are smaller than the circle size. Upper panel: $R_{\rm SB}$ is underestimated to 1.05 and 1.35 with respect to 1.10 and 1.40. Lower panel: $R_{\rm SB}$ is overestimated to 1.15 and 1.45. See text for the discussion.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=6.5cm,clip]{9538_f11.ps} \end{figure}$ Figure 11: Mean temperature profiles computed by choosing different values for the threshold I₀ (defined in Sect. 4) plotted with different colors. There is a clear systematic effect: the smaller the threshold, the steeper the profile. The radii have been slightly offset in the plot for clarity.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=6.5cm,clip]{9538_f12.ps} \end{figure}$ Figure 12: Mean temperature profiles obtained by fitting spectra in the 0.7-10.0 keV (filled circles) and in the 2.0-10.0 keV band (empty circles). The profiles are very similar, except for the innermost point. The radii have been slightly offset in the plot for clarity.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=6.5cm,clip]{9538_f13.ps} \end{figure}$ Figure 13: Mean temperature profiles as a function of the QSP contamination, $R_{\rm SB}$ . The four profiles are fully consistent, and no correlation is found between the shape of the profiles and $R_{\rm SB}$ . The radii have been slightly offset in the plot for clarity.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=6.5cm,clip]{9538_f14.ps} \end{figure}$ Figure 14: Mean temperature profile rescaled by R₁₈₀ and ${k}T_{\rm M}$ . For each ring, empty boxes and shaded regions indicate one-sigma uncertainties respectively before and after the bias correction.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7.1cm,clip]{9538_f15.ps} \end{figure}$ Figure 15: Power-law best-fit parameters obtained by fitting profiles beyond a variable radius, $R_{\rm min}$ , in units of R₁₈₀. The normalization is calculated at 0.2. The index best-fit value is not constant with $R_{\rm min}$ , thus the ICM cannot be considered as a polytrope.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=6.5cm,clip]{9538_f16.ps} \end{figure}$ Figure 16: Mean temperature profiles for the four z-binned groups of clusters. There is no indication of profile evolution. The radii have been slightly offset in the plot for clarity.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7.1cm,clip]{9538_f17.ps} \end{figure}$ Figure 17: Best fit parameters obtained by fitting each group of profiles with a power law beyond 0.2 R₁₈₀. The normalization is calculated at 0.2 R₁₈₀. The dashed lines indicate the best fit values for the whole sample. No clear correlation is found between power-law parameters and the redshift.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=6.5cm,clip]{9538_f18.ps} \end{figure}$ Figure 18: Mean temperature profiles for cool core (blue), non cool core (red), and uncertain (green) clusters. Profiles differ by definition in the core region and are consistent in the outer regions.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=6.5cm,clip]{9538_f19.ps} \end{figure}$ Figure 19: Mean temperature profiles obtained from the LP07 subsample (blue triangles), the REFL04 subsample (red squares), and the whole sample (green circles). The three profiles are fully consistent in the outer regions. The radii have been slightly offset in the plot for clarity.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=6.5cm,clip]{9538_f20.ps} \end{figure}$ Figure 20: Comparison between our observed mean profile (circles) and the one derived from hydrodynamic simulations (Borgani et al. 2004) by averaging over clusters with kT > 3 keV (solid line). The dashed line is obtained by rescaling the solid one by 10%.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7.1cm,clip]{9538_f21.ps} \end{figure}$ Figure 21: Upper panel: mean temperature profiles obtained from this work (black circles, LM08), by De Grandi & Molendi (blue squares, DM02), by Vikhlinin et al. (red upward triangles, V05), and by Pratt et al. (green diamonds, P07). All profiles are rescaled by ${k}T_{\rm M}$ and R₁₈₀ as defined in Sect. 4. The dashed line shows the best fit with a linear model beyond 0.2 R₁₈₀ (see Sect. 6.1) and is drawn to guide the eye. Lower panel: residuals with respect to the linear model. The LM08 profile is the flattest one.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7.1cm,clip]{9538_f22.ps} \end{figure}$ Figure 22: Best fit parameters, obtained by fitting observed and simulated cluster profiles with a power law, beyond 0.2 R₁₈₀. In the upper panel we report the normalization, in the lower the index. We use the same symbols as in Fig. 21 for observed clusters and a violet downward triangle for Borgani's work (B04). The normalization is calculated at 0.2 R₁₈₀. For P07 we report two values, empty diamonds indicate index and normalization obtained when excluding the two outermost measurements (see text for details). The empty downward triangle indicates the normalization of the B04 rescaled profile (see Sect. 6.5). In the lower panel, the dashed line and the shaded region represent the weighted average and its one sigma confidence interval derived from the observed profiles only (for P07 we use the lower value, i.e. the empty diamond). As previously noted from Fig. 21, the LM08 profile is the flattest one, but all indices of observed profiles are consistent within two sigma. Conversely, the B04 profile seems to be significantly steeper, but in this case we are not able to provide an estimate of parameter uncertainty.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[angle=270,width=7.5cm,clip]{9538_f23.ps} \end{figure}$ Figure A.1: MOS1 (thick) and MOS2 (thin) spectra from closed observations in the whole energy band, i.e. 0.2-11.3 keV. MOS2 spectrum is scaled by a factor of 2 for clarity. Spectra were accumulated in the 10 $^\prime$ -12 $^\prime$ ring. The total exposure time is $\approx$ 650 ks.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=16.5cm,clip]{9538_f24.ps} \end{figure}$ Figure A.2: $\Gamma _1$ , $\Gamma _2$ , and N values for MOS1 ( top) and MOS2 ( bottom) for all closed observations analyzed. The dotted lines are the best fit values reported in Table A.1. For $\Gamma _1$ and $\Gamma _2$ the scatter is comparable with the uncertainties, while for N there is an intrinsic scatter of $\approx$ 20%. N values are reported in XSPEC units.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7.5cm,clip]{9538_f25.ps} \end{figure}$ Figure A.3: Surface brightness best fit values for MOS1 ( left) and MOS2 ( right) as a function of the distance from the detector center.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[angle=270,width=7.5cm,clip]{9538_f26.ps} \end{figure}$ Figure B.1: MOS1 spectrum from blank field observations in the 10 $^\prime$ -12 $^\prime$ ring. Above 2 keV the spectrum is simpler.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=6.5cm,clip]{9538_f1.ps} \end{figure}$	Figure 1: Distribution of selected clusters in the redshift-temperature space. We distinguish cool core (blue), non cool core (red) and uncertain (green) clusters, as defined in Sect. 6. There is no evidence of selection effects, except for a weak positive correlation between redshift and temperature.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=3.6cm,clip]{9538_f2a.ps}\hspace*{0.9cm} \includegraphics[width=3.5cm,clip]{9538_f2b.ps} \end{figure}$	Figure 2: Histograms of the frequency distribution for averaged MOS exposure time ( left panel) and $R_{\rm SB}$ ( right panel) values.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=6.5cm,clip]{9538_f4.ps} \end{figure}$	Figure 4: Radial temperature profiles for all clusters in our sample rescaled by R₁₈₀ and ${k}T_{\rm M}$ .
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=6.5cm,clip]{9538_f6.ps} \end{figure}$	Figure 6: Mean radial temperature profile rescaled by R₁₈₀ and ${k}T_{\rm M}$ . The dotted lines show the one-sigma scatter of the values around the average.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=6.5cm,clip]{9538_f11.ps} \end{figure}$	Figure 11: Mean temperature profiles computed by choosing different values for the threshold I₀ (defined in Sect. 4) plotted with different colors. There is a clear systematic effect: the smaller the threshold, the steeper the profile. The radii have been slightly offset in the plot for clarity.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=6.5cm,clip]{9538_f12.ps} \end{figure}$	Figure 12: Mean temperature profiles obtained by fitting spectra in the 0.7-10.0 keV (filled circles) and in the 2.0-10.0 keV band (empty circles). The profiles are very similar, except for the innermost point. The radii have been slightly offset in the plot for clarity.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=6.5cm,clip]{9538_f13.ps} \end{figure}$	Figure 13: Mean temperature profiles as a function of the QSP contamination, $R_{\rm SB}$ . The four profiles are fully consistent, and no correlation is found between the shape of the profiles and $R_{\rm SB}$ . The radii have been slightly offset in the plot for clarity.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=6.5cm,clip]{9538_f14.ps} \end{figure}$	Figure 14: Mean temperature profile rescaled by R₁₈₀ and ${k}T_{\rm M}$ . For each ring, empty boxes and shaded regions indicate one-sigma uncertainties respectively before and after the bias correction.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7.1cm,clip]{9538_f15.ps} \end{figure}$	Figure 15: Power-law best-fit parameters obtained by fitting profiles beyond a variable radius, $R_{\rm min}$ , in units of R₁₈₀. The normalization is calculated at 0.2. The index best-fit value is not constant with $R_{\rm min}$ , thus the ICM cannot be considered as a polytrope.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=6.5cm,clip]{9538_f16.ps} \end{figure}$	Figure 16: Mean temperature profiles for the four z-binned groups of clusters. There is no indication of profile evolution. The radii have been slightly offset in the plot for clarity.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7.1cm,clip]{9538_f17.ps} \end{figure}$	Figure 17: Best fit parameters obtained by fitting each group of profiles with a power law beyond 0.2 R₁₈₀. The normalization is calculated at 0.2 R₁₈₀. The dashed lines indicate the best fit values for the whole sample. No clear correlation is found between power-law parameters and the redshift.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=6.5cm,clip]{9538_f18.ps} \end{figure}$	Figure 18: Mean temperature profiles for cool core (blue), non cool core (red), and uncertain (green) clusters. Profiles differ by definition in the core region and are consistent in the outer regions.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=6.5cm,clip]{9538_f19.ps} \end{figure}$	Figure 19: Mean temperature profiles obtained from the LP07 subsample (blue triangles), the REFL04 subsample (red squares), and the whole sample (green circles). The three profiles are fully consistent in the outer regions. The radii have been slightly offset in the plot for clarity.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=6.5cm,clip]{9538_f20.ps} \end{figure}$	Figure 20: Comparison between our observed mean profile (circles) and the one derived from hydrodynamic simulations (Borgani et al. 2004) by averaging over clusters with kT > 3 keV (solid line). The dashed line is obtained by rescaling the solid one by 10%.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[angle=270,width=7.5cm,clip]{9538_f23.ps} \end{figure}$	Figure A.1: MOS1 (thick) and MOS2 (thin) spectra from closed observations in the whole energy band, i.e. 0.2-11.3 keV. MOS2 spectrum is scaled by a factor of 2 for clarity. Spectra were accumulated in the 10 $^\prime$ -12 $^\prime$ ring. The total exposure time is $\approx$ 650 ks.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=16.5cm,clip]{9538_f24.ps} \end{figure}$	Figure A.2: $\Gamma _1$ , $\Gamma _2$ , and N values for MOS1 ( top) and MOS2 ( bottom) for all closed observations analyzed. The dotted lines are the best fit values reported in Table A.1. For $\Gamma _1$ and $\Gamma _2$ the scatter is comparable with the uncertainties, while for N there is an intrinsic scatter of $\approx$ 20%. N values are reported in XSPEC units.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=7.5cm,clip]{9538_f25.ps} \end{figure}$	Figure A.3: Surface brightness best fit values for MOS1 ( left) and MOS2 ( right) as a function of the distance from the detector center.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[angle=270,width=7.5cm,clip]{9538_f26.ps} \end{figure}$	Figure B.1: MOS1 spectrum from blank field observations in the 10 $^\prime$ -12 $^\prime$ ring. Above 2 keV the spectrum is simpler.
Open with DEXTER