Free Access

Table 2

Rest-frame parameters of 32 GBM GRBs.

GRB Mission T90,rest Ep,rest Best fitting z Ref.
[s] [keV] Model

100816A Swift 1.11 ± 0.11 BAND 0.8049(1) [1]
100814A Swift 60.25 ± 0.90 COMP 1.44(1) [2]
100414A Swift 9.42 ± 0.21 COMP 1.368(1) [3]
100117 Swift 0.17 ± 0.07 COMP 0.92(1) [4]
091208B Swift 5.82 ± 0.19 COMP 1.063(1) [5]
091127 Swift 5.37 ± 0.20 BAND 0.490(1) [6]
091024a Swift  ≈ 487.80 COMP 1.092(1) [7]
091020 Swift 14.54 ± 1.18 BAND 1.71(1) [8]
091003A Fermi 10.91 ± 0.16 COMP 0.8969(1) [9]
090927 Swift 0.42 ± 0.04 COMP 1.37(1) [10]
090926B Swift 45.27 ± 2.05 COMP 1.24(1) [11]
090926A Fermi 4.44 ± 0.06 BAND* 2.1062(1) [12]
090902B Fermi 6.80 ± 0.11 COMP+PL 1.822(1) [13]
090618 Swift 72.66 ± 0.45 BAND* 0.54(1) [14]
090519A Swift 10.76 ± 4.06 ···    PL 3.85(1) [15, 16]
090516A Swift 43.49 ± 3.70 COMP 4.109(1) [17, 18]
090510 Swift 0.63 ± 0.11 BAND+PL 0.903(1) [19]
090424 Swift 10.10 ± 0.39 BAND 0.544(1) [20, 21]
090423 Swift 3.19 ± 0.16 COMP 8.26(8) [22]
090328A Fermi 31.74 ± 0.58 COMP 0.736(1) [23]
090323 Fermi 28.91 ± 0.13 BAND 3.57(1) [24]
090102 Swift 10.56 ± 0.27 COMP 1.547(1) [25]
081222 Swift 5.78 ± 0.48 BAND 2.77(1) [26]
081121 Swift 5.30 ± 0.46 BAND 2.512(1) [27]
081008 Swift 48.64 ± 6.80 COMP 1.9685(1) [28]
081007 Swift 7.19 ± 1.31 COMP 0.5295(1) [29]
080928 Swift 17.42 ± 2.30 ···    PL 1.692(1) [30]
080916C Fermi 18.37 ± 2.13 BAND 4.35(5) [31]
080916A Swift 20.49 ± 0.36 COMP 0.689(1) [32]
080905B Swift 28.96 ± 0.59 COMP 2.374(1) [33]
080810 Swift 13.75 ± 1.10 BAND 3.35(1) [34]
080804 Swift 6.12 ± 0.56 COMP 2.2045(1) [35]

Notes. The columns show the name of the GRB, T90,rest, Ep,rest, best fitting model, redshift and redshift references of the 32 GBM GRBs presented here. The keyword “Swift” in the mission column denotes whether the GRB triggered both Swift and GBM, whereas “Fermi” indicates that it was triggered by GBM only.For bursts with * an effective area correction was applied to the BGO with respect to the NaI detectors.

(a)

The T90,rest and Ep,rest values for GRB 091024 were taken from Gruber et al. (2011).

References. (1) Tanvir et al. (2010); (2) O’Meara et al. (2010); (3) Cucchiara & Fox (2010); (4) Berger (2010); (5) Wiersema et al. (2009b); (6) Cucchiara et al. (2009a); (7) Cucchiara et al. (2009b); (8) Xu et al. (2009); (9) Cucchiara et al. (2009c); (10) Levan et al. (2009); (11) Fynbo et al. (2009); (12) Malesani et al. (2009); (13) Cucchiara et al. (2009d); (14) Cenko et al. (2009b); (15) Thoene et al. (2009); (16) Rossi et al. (2009b); (17) de Ugarte Postigo et al. (2009a); (18) Rossi et al. (2009a); (19) Rau et al. (2009); (20) Chornock et al. (2009b); (21) Wiersema et al. (2009a); (22) Tanvir et al. (2009); (23) Cenko et al. (2009a); (24) Chornock et al. (2009a); (25) de Ugarte Postigo et al. (2009b); (26) Cucchiara et al. (2008); (27) Berger & Rauch (2008); (28) D’Avanzo et al. (2008); (29) Berger et al. (2008); (30) Cucchiara & Fox (2008); (31) Greiner et al. (2009); (32) Fynbo et al. (2008); (33) Vreeswijk et al. (2008); (34) Prochaska et al. (2008); (35) Thoene et al. (2008).

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.