Table 2: Best-fit parameters as derived by fitting the XRT and IBIS data.
Source Energy band $N_{\rm H(Gal)}^{a}$ $N_{\rm H}^{a}$ $\Gamma$ $C_{\rm calib}^{b}$ $\chi^2/\nu$ $F_{\rm (2-10~keV)}^{c}$ $F_{\rm (20-100~keV)}^{c}$

(keV)

IGR J18249-3243 0.5-100 0.118 - $1.54\pm0.12$ $\rm0.52^{+0.35}_{-0.21}$ 32.7/31 $0.52\pm0.03$ $0.79\pm0.15$

IGR J19443+2117 0.9-100 0.836 $\rm0.54^{+0.12}_{-0.13}$ $2.04\pm0.12$ $\rm0.60^{+0.37}_{-0.28}$ 84.3/93 $1.83\pm0.04$ $1.12\pm0.22$

IGR J22292+6647 (low + high) 1-100 0.481 - $1.60\pm0.10$ $\rm0.76^{+0.45}_{-0.32}$ ^d 120.5/105 $0.67\pm0.05$ ^e $1.10\pm0.02$

^a In units of 10²² cm^-2 (from Kalberla et al. 2005); ^b IBIS/XRT cross-calibration constant; ^c in units of 10^-11 erg cm^-2 s^-1; ^d the simultaneous fit of the low and high XRT states, performed by normalising to the low state, provides a cross-calibration constant for the high state of $\rm 1.42^{+0.16}_{-0.14}$ , thus confirming variability during XRT observations; ^e in this case we report the average value found for the flux.

**Table 2:** Best-fit parameters as derived by fitting the XRT and IBIS data.
Source	Energy band	$N_{\rm H(Gal)}^{a}$	$N_{\rm H}^{a}$	$\Gamma$	$C_{\rm calib}^{b}$	$\chi^2/\nu$	$F_{\rm (2-10~keV)}^{c}$	$F_{\rm (20-100~keV)}^{c}$
	(keV)
IGR J18249-3243	0.5-100	0.118	-	$1.54\pm0.12$	$\rm0.52^{+0.35}_{-0.21}$	32.7/31	$0.52\pm0.03$	$0.79\pm0.15$
IGR J19443+2117	0.9-100	0.836	$\rm0.54^{+0.12}_{-0.13}$	$2.04\pm0.12$	$\rm0.60^{+0.37}_{-0.28}$	84.3/93	$1.83\pm0.04$	$1.12\pm0.22$
IGR J22292+6647 (low + high)	1-100	0.481	-	$1.60\pm0.10$	$\rm0.76^{+0.45}_{-0.32}$ ^d	120.5/105	$0.67\pm0.05$ ^e	$1.10\pm0.02$

Source LaTeX | All tables | In the text