\begin{table}%t2
\caption{\label{tab:results}Scale-lengths and relative contributions of the core component.}
%\centering
\par
\begin{tabular}{l|rlr|rlr}
\hline\hline%\noalign{\smallskip}
 &  &  &   &  & &  \\[-3mm]
& \multicolumn{3}{c|}{M~81} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{M~100}\\
\hline
Band & $r^{\rm s}$ ($''$) & Fit & $f_{c}$ & $r^{\rm s}$ ($''$) & Fit & $f_{c}$ \\
(1) & (2) & (3) & (4) & (5) & (6) & (7) \\
\hline
M~24~\mic & 7.2 & E+E & 8.8  & 10.3 & G+G & 20.1 \\
M~70~\mic & 38.8 & G+G & 6.2 & 13.2 & G+G & 12.2 \\
P~70~\mic & 27.9  & G+G  & 6.3 & \multicolumn{3}{c}{{\it n.a.}} \\
M~160~\mic & 28.5& G+G & 0.3 &  5.14 & G+G & 3.5\\
P~160~\mic &  26.4 & G+G  & 1.2 & \multicolumn{3}{c}{{\it n.a.}} \\
S~250~\mic & 25.2 & G+G & 0.3 &  9.5 & G+G & 7.8 \\
S~350~\mic & 10.2 & G+G & 0.2 &  5.4 & G+G & 7.4 \\
S~500~\mic & 11.8 & G+G & 0.2 &  6.5 & G+G & 7.6\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\tablefoot{For M~99, the profile fit revealed no central component except at 24~\mic\ so we report this in the text. In column (1), M, P and S are MIPS, PACS and SPIRE, respectively, (2) and (5) the core component scale-length in arcseconds, (3) and (6) the best fit functions, E for exponential and G for {Gaussian}, and (4) and (7) the core component contribution to the total flux in \%, respectively for M~81 and M~100. Relative uncertainties on the scale parameters are typically of $10\%$, while on the core fractions these are typically $20\%$}
\end{table}