---
abstract: 'It has been proposed that the width of the narrow \[O III\] $\lambda5007$ emission line can be used as a surrogate for the stellar velocity dispersion in active galaxies. This proposition is tested using the SDSS EDR spectra of 107 low-redshift radio-quiet QSOs and Seyfert 1 galaxies by investigating the correlation between black hole mass, as determined from H$\beta$ FWHM and optical luminosity, and \[O III\] FWHM. The correlation is real, but the scatter is large. Without additional information or selection criteria, the \[O III\] width can predict the black hole mass to a factor of 5.'
author:
- 'Todd A. Boroson'
title: 'Does the Narrow \[O III\] $\lambda5007$ Line Reflect the Stellar Velocity Dispersion in AGN?'
---

Introduction
============

The correlation of nuclear black hole mass ${\rm M_{\bullet}}$ and bulge stellar velocity dispersion $\sigma_{\ast}$ is now well established in nearby galaxies [@tremaineetal02]. The possibility of extending the study of this relationship to active galaxies, using diagnostics that can be easily measured even at substantial redshifts, has been explored as a result of two techniques: (1) the use of reverberation mapping to calibrate a relation between luminosity and radius of the broad line region (BLR), and (2) the use of the narrow \[O III\] $\lambda$5007 emission line width as a surrogate for stellar velocity dispersion.

If the BLR is in virial equilibrium, the mass of the central black hole is given by M$_{\bullet} = v^2 {\rm R_{BLR}} / G$, where $v$ and ${\rm R_{BLR}}$ are the characteristic velocity and radius of the BLR. Scale factors for converting measured quantities to truly representative and corresponding velocities and radii depend on the unknown kinematic structure of the BLR. However, several studies have shown that estimates of the black hole mass that are consistent with other methods can be derived in this way. @gebhardtetal00 and @merrittandferrarese00 show that black hole masses derived using velocities from the H$\beta$ line width and radii from reverberation mapping time lags fall on the same relation in the ${\rm M_{\bullet}}$ vs $\sigma{\ast}$ diagram as those derived from spatially resolved spectroscopy. Admittedly, this confirmation is possible for only a small number of objects, but the scatter appears consistent with measurement errors. @kaspietal00 showed that a good correlation exists between BLR radius and the monochromatic luminosity L$_5100$ with a power law index of 0.7 for their sample of reverberation-mapped AGNs, allowing this easily measured luminosity to be substituted for time lags derived from arduous monitoring campaigns. This set of correlations (the “photoionization method” [@wandeletal99]) has already been used in a number of studies of black hole masses in AGNs including @merrittandferrarese00, @laor00, @lacyetal01, @shieldsetal02, @vestergaard02, @oshlacketal02, and @jarvisandmclure02.

The evidence that the \[O III\] line width in QSOs is dominated by the gravitational potential on the scale of the host galaxy bulge is primarily the result of two studies. @nelsonandwhittle96 studied the relationship between the widths of narrow emission lines and near-nuclear stellar velocity dispersion for a sample of 75 Seyfert galaxies. They found a moderately strong correlation between \[O III\] FWHM and $\sigma_{\ast}$ (r = 0.48, P(null) = 0.0038% for 66 objects) with a slope flatter than unity due to anomolously broad \[O III\] lines in objects that have powerful linear radio sources. As a consequence of this finding, @nelson00 proposed that the \[O III\] FWHM could be used to extend the ${\rm M_{\bullet}}$ vs $\sigma_{\ast}$ relation to AGNs. His study compared the location of 20 Seyfert galaxies and 12 QSOs in the ${\rm M_{\bullet}}$ vs \[O III\] FWHM plane with the ${\rm M_{\bullet}}$ vs $\sigma{\ast}$ relation from @gebhardtetal00 (where FWHM = $2.35 \times \sigma$). The data in his study were gathered from a number of sources in the literature, and comprised all objects for which ${\rm M_{\bullet}}$ values had been derived from reverberation mapping measurements. @nelson00 found that for these AGN, the ${\rm M_{\bullet}}$ and \[O III\] FWHM values were strongly correlated and consistent with the @gebhardtetal00 relation, though with substantial scatter.

Because of the scatter seen by @nelson00 in the ${\rm M_{\bullet}}$ vs \[O III\] FWHM relation and the heterogeneous data used in that study, it is useful to further investigate that relation. If the relation is tight, it provides a mechanism for studying the evolution of the relationship between black hole and galaxy formation processes, as the emission lines, H$\beta$ and \[O III\] $\lambda$5007 can be easily observed and measured to substantial redshifts. An initial attempt to compare this relationship between low and high redshift sample using data from the literature has been published by @shieldsetal02.

This paper reports on an investigation of the ${\rm M_{\bullet}}$ vs \[O III\] FWHM relation for AGN from a large, homogeneous data set, the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) Early Data Release (EDR) spectra. The goal of this study is to establish the reality of this relation, measure its scatter, and detect any selection effects that would compromise a comparison of low and high redshift samples.

The Sample
==========

The QSOs included in the sample were all drawn from the SDSS EDR [@stoughtonetal02]. The SDSS ought to provide an excellent dataset for this purpose, as it has uniform photometry and spectroscopy, and sufficient spectral resolution (R $\sim$ 1800) to resolve the \[O III\] line [@yorketal00]. Although @schneideretal02 have generated an EDR Quasar catalog, it has a luminosity constraint (M$_{\rm I} \leq -23$) and a line width constraint (FWHM $\geq$ 1000 km ${\rm s}^{-1}$). Since the current study wants the largest possible range of M$_{\bullet}$, which depends on both luminosity and line width, a new catalog was generated from the SDSS database.

First, spectra of all QSO candidates, having ${\rm g^*}$ magnitudes brighter than 18.0 and redshifts less than 0.5 were downloaded from the archive. The magnitude limit was imposed because it was recognized that the fainter objects would not have spectra with sufficient signal-to-noise to support the analysis. The redshift limit was imposed to ensure the the H$\beta$ and \[O III\] lines would be in a region free of noise from strong night-sky emission lines. This initial list contained 201 objects. Visual inspection of these spectra showed that further trimming of the list would be required to remove those objects that were too low in signal-to-noise or which had no obvious broad line region. This resulted in a list of 121 objects. Two entries in this list are actually two independent observations of the same object, SDSS J032205.05+001201.4

Each spectrum was shifted to a rest wavelength scale, using the redshift obtained from the SDSS database, and rebinned to a common format with 1.5A ${\rm pixel}^{-1}$. The complex Fe II emission was then measured and subtracted using the technique and template described in @borosonandgreen92 (BG92). Briefly, a template with strong, narrow Fe II emission was constructed from a spectrum of the low redshift QSO I Zwicky 1. Lines attributed to other ions were removed and the continuum subtracted. This template was then broadened and multiplied by scaling factors and subtracted from each QSO spectrum. Different combinations of broadening and scaling were tried until the continuum on either side of the H$\beta$-\[O III\] complex appeared flat and featureless. In practice, the initial guess for broadening was obtained by measuring the H$\beta$ width from the spectrum and assuming that the Fe II width was identical. This produced a satisfactory result in almost all cases.

Once the best Fe II broadening and scaling were identified, a Fe II-subtracted spectrum was generated and the continuum was fit and removed between the emission lines over the range $\lambda\lambda4200-6000$. H$\beta$ and $\lambda5007$ widths were measured from these normalized spectra. These widths are not derived from fits to functions, but are actual measured widths of the two lines at half of their maximum intensity. Six of the objects had no detectable (or very weak) \[O III\] emission, and so they were removed from the sample. The remaining 115 objects, together with H$\beta$ FWHM and $\sigma_{\rm [O III]}$ (FWHM/2.35; corrected for instrumental resolution; see below) are listed in table 1. Note that the two sets of measurements for the object observed (and analyzed) twice, SDSS J032205.05+001201.4, differ by 5% or less.

In the case of the \[O III\] widths, the instrumental resolution, 166 km ${\rm s}^{-1}$ (or 2.8A at $\lambda5007$), has been subtracted in quadrature from the measured widths. Note that this correction only changes the line width by as much as 20% in 12 of the 115 objects.

For the H$\beta$ line widths an additional caveat is required. In approximately one-fourth of the spectra, a narrow H$\beta$ spike is seen on top of the broad H$\beta$ line. We have ignored this spike in measuring the FWHM of the H$\beta$ line. Although such spikes include only a small fraction of the flux in the line, they can dramatically change the FWHM value measured.

Recently @vestergaard02 has discussed at length the correct method for measuring the BLR line width for the calculation of M$_{\bullet}$. As she points out, the appropriate BLR velocity dispersion is that measured from the ‘rms’ spectrum, which represents the varying part of the line profile. She goes on to compare the FWHM H$\beta$ values from the rms spectra of @kaspietal00 with mean and single-epoch measurements of the same objects. She concludes that, in general, the best way to substitute a single-epoch spectrum for the rms spectrum is to remove the Fe II emission, but leave the narrow component of H$\beta$ to be included in the measurement. The conclusion that the narrow component should not be removed is motivated primarily by the single object PG1704+608 (3C 351), which has a strong, narrow spike on top of a very broad H$\beta$ line. Measurements of the width of the broad lines in this object include 6560 km ${\rm s}^{-1}$ (H$\beta$; BG92), 13,000 km ${\rm s}^{-1}$ (H$\alpha$; @eracleousandhalpern94), 10,000 km ${\rm s}^{-1}$ (H$\beta$; @netzeretal82). However, @kaspietal00 quote 890 km ${\rm s}^{-1}$ for the mean spectrum and 400 km ${\rm s}^{-1}$ for the rms spectrum. Is it really the narrow component of H$\beta$ that is varying?

There are several reasons to think that the idea that it is the narrow part of the line varying is in error. First, the narrow component only accounts for a small fraction of the line flux – around 10% in this object. Thus, to produce a change in total line flux of a factor of two, as is seen in the @kaspietal00 data, it would need to vary by a factor of 20. This is inconsistent with published spectra in @kaspietal00 and BG92, and the SDSS EDR spectrum of this object, all of which show the narrow H$\beta$ at similar strength relative to the \[O III\] lines. Second, the adoption of such a small characteristic velocity width for the BLR results in a very low black hole mass. The @kaspietal00 value based on the rms spectrum is $7.5 \times 10^6
M\sun$. The black hole mass based on the BG92 line width is $2.0 \times
10^9 M\sun$. The small black hole mass would imply an unreasonably small Eddington luminosity, resulting in an Eddington ratio of 30, while the high black hole mass gives a more sensible Eddington ratio of 0.1. Finally, we note that a drawback of the use of the rms spectrum to identify the changing part of the line is that variations in line profiles due to seeing differences or instrumental differences from observation to observation will cause residuals (see footnote 9 in @kaspietal00). The rms spectrum of PG 1704+608 shows significant residual emission at the \[O III\] lines, ten times as strong as the narrow H$\beta$ spike in that spectrum [@kaspi02]. This suggests that in this object, the rms spectrum is misleading as an indicator of what part of the H$\beta$ line is varying as a response to continuum variations.

Table 1 also lists for each object the black hole mass, derived using the formula M$_{\bullet} = v^2 {\rm R_{BLR}} / G$, where $v=\sqrt{3}/2 {\rm FWHM_{H\beta}}$, and ${\rm R_{BLR}} = 
32.9(\lambda{\rm L}_{5100}/10^{44} {\rm ergs\ s^{-1}})^{0.7}$ light days [@kaspietal00]. The values of L$_{5100}$ were derived from the ${\rm r^*}$ photometry in the SDSS database. Fluxes were converted to luminosities using the @schlegeletal98 maps for correcting for galactic absorption, H$_0$ = 75 km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$, and q$_0$ = 0.5.

Finally, Table 1 also lists log R, a measure of radio loudness. The FIRST catalog [@beckeretal95] and the NVSS catalog [@condonetal98] were searched at the position of each object. All but one of the objects, SDSS J173348.81+585651.0, are in regions covered by one or the other radio survey. Any source within 30 arcseconds was declared a match, though we note that the positional accuracy of all these surveys is good enough that a match with a radio core ought to lie within 2 arcseconds. Thus, we flag those that have differences between the radio and optical centroid of more than 2 arcseconds with a colon in Table 1. R is the ratio of flux density at 5 GHz to flux density at $\lambda$2500. In computing this, a spectral slope of -0.3 was used to transform the total observed radio flux density at 1.4 GHz, and an optical spectral slope of -1.0 was used to transform the g$^*$ magnitude.

Figure 1 shows the black hole mass plotted against the \[O III\] line width for the 115 SDSS low-redshift QSOs. The seven objects with log R $>$ 1, the usual criterion for radio-loud, are plotted as open circles. The one object unobserved in the radio is plotted as an open triangle. The remaining 107 objects are plotted as solid squares.

Discussion
==========

A correlation between M$_{\bullet}$ and \[O III\] width is evident in Figure 1, though the scatter is large. For the following fitting and statistical analysis the two observations of SDSS J032205.05+001201.4 have been combined by averaging their measurements and the radio-loud objects have been removed, resulting in a sample of 107 objects. The correlation coefficient is r = 0.44 (P = $6 \times 10^{-6}$) for the 107 objects that are not radio-loud. Two lines through the points are shown in Figure 1. The solid line is a fit to the radio-quiet points, using the least-squares bisector [@isobeetal90], which is plausible for situations where both variables have large uncertainties. This is the same type of fit used by @nelson00. For an equation of the form log(M$_{\bullet}/M_\sun) = \alpha\ + \beta\ {\rm log}(\sigma/\sigma_0)$, the fit has coefficients $\alpha$ = $8.05\pm0.07$ and $\beta$ = $3.59\pm0.47$ where $\sigma_0 = 200 {\rm km s^{-1}}$. The dashed line is that derived by @tremaineetal02 who find $\alpha$ = $8.13\pm0.06$ and $\beta$ = $4.02\pm0.32$ from a sample of 31 nearby galaxies. For comparison, the sample of @nelson00, analyzed in the same way has an identical correlation coefficient of r = 0.44, and coefficients of $\alpha$ = 6.54 and $\beta$ = 3.50 for the 28 radio-quiet objects.

One measure of the scatter is the standard deviation of the points from the bisector fit in log M$_{\bullet}$. This is the accuracy with which $\sigma_{\rm [O III]}$ could be used to calculate M$_{\bullet}$. For the 107 radio-quiet low-redshift objects, the standard deviation is 0.67 in log M$_{\bullet}$, or a factor of a little less than 5. Alternatively, one can compare the fit to the data with the @tremaineetal02 line, which represents the relationship that we believe we are modeling. Clearly, both the slope and intercept (at $\sigma_0 = 200 {\rm\ km\ s^{-1}}$) are consistent between the two fits. This is interesting not only as confirmation that the two approaches are demonstrating the same physical relationship, but also because the scatter of the AGN points around the non-AGN fit is close to symmetric.

The fact that the scatter is larger than the non-AGN sample (@tremaineetal02 quote intrinsic dispersion in log M$_{\bullet}$ of 0.3 or less) is not surprising. The scatter is not primarily due to measurement errors, as these are probably no more than about 10% for the line widths and a few percent for the magnitudes. However, both H$\beta$ FWHM and optical brightness vary in most AGNs, and these will produce errors in M$_{\bullet}$. In addition, luminosity is being used to predict ${\rm R_{BLR}}$, and this relation has significant scatter [@kaspietal00]. On the abscissa, \[O III\] FWHM is not a perfect predictor of stellar velocity dispersion [@nelsonandwhittle96], but shows scatter of about 0.2 in the log around a ratio of unity. @nelsonandwhittle96 explored this relationship in detail, and found that several properties indicated high \[O III\] widths relative to the stellar velocity dispersion, including powerful linear radio sources and systems showing obvious signs of interaction. We have removed the radio-loud objects in this study, but have no way of filtering by properties such as host galaxy interaction. The fact that the scatter is approximately equal on the two sides of the @tremaineetal02 fit suggests that the explanation is not as simple as objects with anomalously high \[O III\] widths.

Given that one goal of this study is to lay the groundwork for an exploration of the M$_{\bullet}$ vs $\sigma_\ast$ relationship as a function of redshift, it is worthwhile to investigate the extent to which the fit depends on the luminosity range of the sample. The 107 low redshift radio-quiet objects were divided into two sub-samples of equal size, one with ${\rm L}_{5100} < 2.7 \times 10^{44}$ ergs $s^{-1}$ and one with ${\rm L}_{5100} > 2.7 \times 10^{44}$ ergs $s^{-1}$. Figure 2 shows these two sub-samples plotted with different symbols and the bisector fits to the sub-samples. The coefficients of the fits are $\alpha$ = 8.02 and $\beta$ = $2.48\pm0.72$ for the low luminosity objects and $\alpha$ = 8.28 and $\beta$ = $1.81\pm0.52$ for the high luminosity objects. Thus, there is a tendency for the slope to flatten in samples restricted to a smaller range of luminosity, particularly for high luminosity. This is not surprising in that the dependence of M$_\bullet$ on luminosity results in a dividing line between low and high luminosity samples that is flatter than the relation itself. This, combined with the large scatter, results in a flatter fit. For comparison with other samples, it certainly seems advisable to maintain the largest possible range of luminosity.

I am grateful to Mike Brotherton and Richard Green for helpful conversations.

Funding for the creation and distribution of the SDSS Archive has been provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the Participating Institutions, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy, the Japanese Monbukagakusho, and the Max Planck Society. The SDSS Web site is http://www.sdss.org/.

This research has made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

Becker, R.H., White, R.L., and Helfand, D., J. 1995, , 450, 559 Boroson, T.A. and Green, R.F. 1992, , 80, 109 Condon, J.J., Cotton, W.D., Greisen, E.W., Yin, Q.F., Perley, R.A., Taylor, G.B., Broderick, J.J. 1998, , 115, 1693 Eracleous, M. and Halpern, J. P. 1994, , 90, 1 Gebhardt, K. et al. 2000, , 543, L5 Isobe, T., Feigelson, E.D., Akritas, M.G., and Babu, G.J. 1990, , 364, 104 Jarvis, M. J. and McLure, R. J. 2002, , 336, L38 Kaspi, S. 2002, private communication Kaspi, S., Smith, P.S., Netzer, H., Maoz, D., Jannuzi, B., and Giveon, U. 2000, , 533, 631 Lacy, M., Laurent-Muehleisen, S. A., Ridgway, S. E., Becker, R. H., and White, R. L. 2001, , 551, L17 Laor, A. 2000, , 543, L111 Merritt, D. and Ferrarese, L. 2000, in ASP Conf. Ser. 249, The Central kpc of Starbursts and AGN, ed. J. H. Knapen, J. E. Beckman, I. Schlosman, and T. J. Mahoney (San Francisco: ASP), 335 Nelson, C.H. 2000, , 544, L91 Nelson, C.H. and Whittle, M. 1986, , 465, 96 Netzer, H., Wills, B.J., and Wills, D. 1982, , 254, 489 Oshlack, A.Y.K.N., Webster, R. L., and Whiting, M. T. 2002, , 576, 81 Schlegel, D.J., Finkbeiner, D.P., and Davis, M. 1998, , 500, 525 Schneider, D. P., et al. , 123, 567 Shields, G.A., Gebhardt, K., Salviander, S., Wills, B.J., Xie, B., Brotherton, M.S., Yuan, J., and Dietrich, M., 2002, , in press Stoughton, C., Lupton, R.H., Bernardi, M., et al. 2002, , 123, 485 Tremaine, S., Gebhardt, K., Bender, R., Bower, G., Dressler, A., Faber, S.M., Filippenko, A.V., Green, R., Grillmair, C., Ho, L.C., Kormendy, J., Lauer, T.R., Magorrian, J., Pinkney, J., and Richstone, D. 2002, , 574, 740 Vestergaard, M. 2002, , 571, 733 Wandel, A., Peterson, B.M., and Malkan, M.A. 1999, , 526, 579 York, D.G., Adelman, J., Anderson, J.E., et al. 2000, , 120, 1579

[lrcccc]{}

000011.97+000225.1 & 0.4790 & 2290 & 290 & 8.17 & not detected\
000710.02+005329.0 & 0.3164 & 11158 & 271 & 9.56 & 0.27\
001327.31+005232.0 & 0.3626 & 1549 & 183 & 7.71 & not detected\
001903.17+000659.1 & 0.0726 & 3283 & 90 & 8.10 & not detected\
002444.11+003221.4 & 0.4004 & 9159 & 180 & 9.56 & 1.42:\
003238.20$-$010035.3 & 0.0919 & 1919 & 73 & 7.10 & not detected\
003431.74$-$001312.7 & 0.3811 & 1197 & 223 & 7.39 & not detected\
003723.50+000812.6 & 0.2518 & 2598 & 196 & 7.85 & not detected\
003847.98+003457.5 & 0.0806 & 7141 & 161 & 8.33 & 0.65\
010342.73+002537.3 & 0.3938 & 2123 & 180 & 8.07 & not detected\
010939.02+005950.4 & 0.0929 & 2765 & 144 & 7.63 & 0.29\
011254.92+000313.0 & 0.2385 & 3135 & 177 & 8.04 & not detected\
011448.68$-$002946.1 & 0.0338 & 3450 & 109 & 7.61 & 0.62:\
011703.58+000027.4 & 0.0456 & 2685 & 136 & 7.57 & -0.36\
011929.06$-$000839.8 & 0.0901 & 666 & 202 & 6.17 & not detected\
012159.82$-$010224.5 & 0.0544 & 4097 & 194 & 7.97 & 0.26\
013418.19+001536.7 & 0.3989 & 4085 & 290 & 8.85 & not detected\
013521.68$-$004402.1 & 0.0984 & 1555 & 290 & 7.21 & 0.44\
013527.85$-$004447.9 & 0.0805 & 3314 & 124 & 7.93 & not detected\
014017.07$-$005003.0 & 0.3346 & 4789 & 164 & 8.98 & not detected\
014238.48+000514.7 & 0.1458 & 2783 & 121 & 7.68 & not detected\
014644.82$-$004043.1 & 0.0827 & 969 & 87 & 6.80 & 0.54\
015910.06+010514.5 & 0.2174 & 3326 & 269 & 8.15 & not detected\
015950.24+002340.9 & 0.1626 & 1956 & 292 & 7.91 & 1.04\
020615.99$-$001729.2 & 0.0427 & 6887 & 169 & 8.45 & 0.06\
021359.79+004226.8 & 0.1821 & 4592 & 207 & 8.28 & 0.97\
023335.38$-$010744.7 & 0.3679 & 2444 & 247 & 8.00 & not detected\
024651.91$-$005931.0 & 0.4681 & 1426 & 77 & 7.96 & 0.41:\
025007.03+002525.4 & 0.1977 & 2086 & 112 & 7.56 & not detected\
025505.67+002523.0 & 0.3541 & 4715 & 229 & 8.63 & not detected\
025646.97+011349.4 & 0.1766 & 2512 & 226 & 7.73 & not detected\
030124.26+011022.9 & 0.0715 & 3073 & 183 & 7.57 & not detected\
030144.20+011530.9 & 0.0747 & 4221 & 215 & 7.93 & not detected\
030417.78+002827.3 & 0.0445 & 1173 & 94 & 6.58 & not detected\
030639.58+000343.1 & 0.1073 & 2567 & 196 & 7.75 & 0.66\
031027.83$-$004950.8 & 0.0804 & 3073 & 66 & 7.75 & not detected\
031427.47$-$011152.4 & 0.3869 & 1660 & 188 & 7.77 & not detected\
032205.05+001201.4 & 0.4719 & 3604 & 247 & 8.76 & not detected\
032205.05+001201.4 & 0.4717 & 3789 & 255 & 8.80 & not detected\
032213.90+005513.5 & 0.1851 & 2339 & 118 & 8.06 & not detected\
032337.65+003555.6 & 0.2154 & 1395 & 194 & 7.28 & not detected\
032559.97+000800.7 & 0.3606 & 12380 & 175 & 9.57 & not detected\
032729.89$-$005958.4 & 0.1340 & 6381 & 164 & 8.61 & not detected\
034226.50$-$000427.1 & 0.3762 & 2573 & 239 & 8.18 & not detected\
101044.51+004331.2 & 0.1780 & 6221 & 177 & 8.85 & -0.29\
101314.87$-$005233.6 & 0.2759 & 1506 & 368 & 7.44 & not detected\
102448.57+003537.9 & 0.0954 & 1481 & 90 & 7.04 & not detected\
102936.10$-$010201.0 & 0.1398 & 5894 & 199 & 8.35 & not detected\
103457.29$-$010209.1 & 0.3280 & 1216 & 124 & 7.40 & not detected\
104230.14+010223.7 & 0.1155 & 673 & 166 & 6.53 & not detected\
104332.88+010108.9 & 0.0719 & 2499 & 109 & 7.55 & not detected\
105706.94$-$004145.1 & 0.1876 & 1784 & 169 & 7.50 & not detected\
110057.71$-$005304.6 & 0.3776 & 4851 & 166 & 8.71 & not detected\
105935.76$-$000551.3 & 0.2825 & 2296 & 150 & 7.82 & not detected\
113541.21+002235.3 & 0.1753 & 994 & 103 & 6.88 & not detected\
113909.66$-$001608.7 & 0.1351 & 3598 & 115 & 7.79 & not detected\
114335.37$-$002942.4 & 0.1715 & 7048 & 115 & 8.54 & not detected\
113909.66$-$001608.7 & 0.1351 & 3752 & 97 & 7.83 & not detected\
113923.66+002301.6 & 0.4721 & 15559 & 329 & 9.92 & not detected\
115235.00$-$000542.7 & 0.1288 & 3894 & 90 & 7.81 & not detected\
115758.73$-$002220.9 & 0.2598 & 4635 & 141 & 8.65 & not detected\
120014.08$-$004638.7 & 0.1793 & 2290 & 161 & 7.62 & 1.80:\
122432.41$-$002731.5 & 0.1571 & 1160 & 136 & 6.85 & not detected\
124324.22+010028.1 & 0.0897 & 5604 & 121 & 8.02 & not detected\
124623.00+002839.9 & 0.0884 & 2518 & 115 & 7.40 & 0.78\
130023.22$-$005429.8 & 0.1222 & 839 & 118 & 6.45 & not detected\
130713.25$-$003601.7 & 0.1700 & 1537 & 158 & 7.28 & not detected\
130756.58+010709.6 & 0.2754 & 3913 & 290 & 8.43 & not detected\
131108.48+003151.8 & 0.4293 & 1401 & 242 & 7.61 & not detected\
132135.33$-$001305.8 & 0.0822 & 4289 & 147 & 8.04 & 0.34\
134044.52$-$004516.7 & 0.3844 & 3215 & 292 & 8.42 & not detected\
134113.94$-$005315.0 & 0.2373 & 2030 & 239 & 7.67 & 1.17\
134251.61$-$005345.4 & 0.3259 & 3166 & 492 & 8.43 & not detected\
134351.07+000434.7 & 0.0736 & 1672 & 87 & 6.87 & not detected\
134452.91+000520.2 & 0.0871 & 2000 & 166 & 7.18 & not detected\
134459.45$-$001559.5 & 0.2448 & 2024 & 121 & 7.65 & not detected\
135943.14$-$003424.6 & 0.1630 & 2105 & 150 & 7.50 & not detected\
143704.12+000705.0 & 0.1403 & 1641 & 84 & 7.04 & not detected\
143847.54$-$000805.5 & 0.1040 & 4123 & 118 & 7.83 & not detected\
144930.49$-$004746.4 & 0.2532 & 8239 & 175 & 8.92 & 0.91\
144932.70+002236.3 & 0.0806 & 882 & 83 & 6.47 & not detected\
145631.65$-$001114.2 & 0.1325 & 7542 & 118 & 8.40 & not detected\
151722.52$-$003002.8 & 0.4450 & 2085 & 172 & 8.15 & not detected\
151723.24$-$002709.3 & 0.1218 & 4376 & 188 & 8.02 & 0.89\
151956.57+001614.6 & 0.1145 & 1537 & 103 & 6.99 & not detected\
152035.35$-$002040.1 & 0.1303 & 5788 & 138 & 8.32 & not detected\
152203.77+001128.3 & 0.2400 & 3012 & 221 & 8.00 & not detected\
152628.20$-$003809.4 & 0.1235 & 2203 & 87 & 7.48 & 0.65:\
154344.28$-$001452.2 & 0.3018 & 2839 & 147 & 8.13 & not detected\
165338.68+634010.6 & 0.2793 & 1660 & 311 & 7.52 & not detected\
165627.32+623226.9 & 0.1848 & 5271 & 191 & 8.42 & not detected\
165958.94+620218.1 & 0.2323 & 3919 & 169 & 8.17 & not detected\
170328.96+614109.9 & 0.0773 & 5480 & 196 & 8.18 & not detected\
170441.38+604430.4 & 0.3719 & 9504 & 167 & 9.92 & 2.15\
171049.89+652102.1 & 0.3855 & 5098 & 386 & 8.72 & not detected\
171300.69+572530.3 & 0.3603 & 2660 & 352 & 8.06 & 0.65\
171411.63+575834.0 & 0.0927 & 2129 & 180 & 7.53 & not detected\
171550.50+593548.8 & 0.0658 & 5326 & 121 & 8.47 & not detected\
171737.95+655939.3 & 0.2927 & 5017 & 290 & 8.66 & not detected\
171750.60+581514.1 & 0.3101 & 4092 & 253 & 8.50 & not detected\
171829.00+573422.4 & 0.1007 & 1388 & 205 & 7.09 & not detected\
171902.30+593715.9 & 0.1785 & 2086 & 124 & 7.53 & not detected\
172032.29+551330.2 & 0.2729 & 3604 & 138 & 8.16 & not detected\
172026.70+554024.2 & 0.3595 & 2777 & 177 & 8.33 & not detected\
172533.08+571645.6 & 0.0659 & 7480 & 109 & 8.25 & not detected\
172711.82+632241.9 & 0.2176 & 10535 & 169 & 9.18 & not detected\
173107.87+620026.1 & 0.0687 & 4863 & 164 & 8.19 & not detected\
173348.81+585651.0 & 0.4911 & 4277 & 202 & 8.71 & not observed\
232259.99$-$005359.4 & 0.1503 & 2617 & 213 & 7.85 & 0.20\
232328.00+002032.9 & 0.1196 & 4320 & 150 & 8.18 & not detected\
233908.80$-$000637.8 & 0.4826 & 6795 & 242 & 9.10 & not detected\
234141.51$-$003806.7 & 0.3192 & 1820 & 175 & 7.75 & 0.44:\
234932.77$-$003645.9 & 0.2790 & 3117 & 308 & 8.22 & 1.27:\
235156.12$-$010913.4 & 0.1741 & 5332 & 175 & 8.72 & 2.48\
235457.10+004219.9 & 0.2705 & 5721 & 440 & 8.61 & not detected\
