Draft version November 30, 2020 Typeset using LATEX twocolumn style in AASTeX63 Structure of Brightest Cluster Galaxies and Intracluster Light M. Kluge,1, 2 B. Neureiter,2 A. Riffeser,1 R. Bender,1, 2 C. Goessl,1 U. Hopp,1, 2 M. Schmidt,1 C. Ries,1 and N. Brosch3 1University-Observatory, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Scheinerstrasse 1, D-81679 Munich, Germany 2Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics, Giessenbachstrasse, D-85748 Garching, Germany 3Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, 69978, Israel (Received August 21, 2019; Revised January 18, 2020; Accepted February 4, 2020) Submitted to ApJS Abstract Observations of 170 local (z . 0:08) galaxy clusters in the northern hemisphere have been obtained with the Wendelstein Telescope Wide Field Imager (WWFI). We correct for systematic effects such as point-spread function broadening, foreground star contamination, relative bias offsets, and charge persistence. Background inhomogeneities induced by scattered light are reduced down to ∆SB > 31 g0 mag arcsec−2 by large dithering and subtraction of night-sky flats. Residual background inhomo- 0 −2 geneities brighter than SBσ < 27:6 g mag arcsec caused by galactic cirrus are detected in front of 23% of the clusters. However, the large field of view allows discrimination between accretion signatures and galactic cirrus. We detect accretion signatures in the form of tidal streams in 22%, shells in 9.4%, and multiple nuclei in 47% of the Brightest Cluster Galaxies (BCGs) and find two BCGs in 7% of the clusters. We measure semimajor-axis surface brightness profiles of the BCGs and their surrounding Intracluster Light (ICL) down to a limiting surface brightness of SB = 30 g0 mag arcsec−2. The spatial resolution in the inner regions is increased by combining the WWFI light profiles with those that we measured from archival Hubble Space Telescope images or deconvolved WWFI images. We find that 71% of the BCG+ICL systems have surface brightness (SB) profiles that are well described by a single S´ersic(SS) function, whereas 29% require a double S´ersic(DS) function to obtain a good fit. We find that BCGs have scaling relations that differ markedly from those of normal ellipticals, likely due to their indistinguishable embedding in the ICL. Keywords: galaxies: elliptical and lenticular, cD | galaxies: formation | galaxies: fundamental parameters | galaxies: halos | galaxies: photometry | techniques: image processing 1. INTRODUCTION (BCGs). The definition of this galaxy type is similar to Following the first detection of an \extended mass of the historic definition of cD galaxies (Matthews et al. luminous intergalactic matter of very low surface bright- 1964; Morgan & Lesh 1965). cD galaxies form a subset ness" in the Coma cluster (Zwicky 1951), numerous of BCGs that are surrounded by an extended, diffuse early studies have confirmed that subgroupings of galax- stellar envelope. That envelope is part of the ex-situ arXiv:1908.08544v2 [astro-ph.GA] 25 Nov 2020 ies in clusters \[...] often share a common outer envelope stellar population that was accreted during mass assem- several hundred kiloparsecs in diameter" (Kormendy & bly (Cooper et al. 2013, 2015; Pillepich et al. 2018). It is Bahcall 1974; also Arp & Bertola 1971; Welch & Sastry probably mixed with the intracluster light (ICL), which 1971; Thuan & Kormendy 1977). A similar envelope is kinematically unbound from the BCG. In this work, was discovered to surround the Virgo cluster galaxy M87 we do not distinguish between stellar envelope, stellar (Arp & Bertola 1969; de Vaucouleurs 1969). halo, and ICL because they are probably indistinguish- Today, we know that many galaxy clusters are popu- able with photometric data alone. Oegerle & Hill(2001) lated by an outstandingly bright and extended elliptical classify 20% of BCGs as cD galaxies. The issue with this galaxy near the geometric and kinematic cluster cen- subset definition is that the detection of an existing en- ter. They are referred to as brightest cluster galaxies velope depends on the depth of the observation. More- over, large samples of BCGs are Gaussian distributed in 2 Kluge et al. their brightnesses (Postman & Lauer 1995; Hansen et al. Postman+ Lauer+ 2009; Donzelli et al. 2011; Lauer et al. 2014), which im- 24 (1995) (2014) ] plies that the transition between cD and non-cD BCGs 2 Seigar+ Donzelli+ c Bernardi+ is continuous. Hence, it makes sense to study BCGs as e 26 (2007) (2011) s (2007) c a generalized class of galaxies. r a Contrary to what the name suggests, a BCG is in our g Krick+ Schombert adopted definition not necessarily the brightest galaxy a 28 (2005) (1986) m Patel+ in a cluster: it must also lie close to the cluster cen- ' g Zhang+ (2006) [ ter as traced by the satellite galaxy distribution or the (2019) Gonzalez+ Kluge+ h 30 V t (2005) (2019) intracluster medium. Between 20% and 40% of central p e galaxies are not the brightest galaxy in their host clus- d Zibetti+ (2005) ters (Skibba et al. 2011; Hoshino et al. 2015). A fa- 32 mous example is M87 in the Virgo cluster. The brightest galaxy is M49, but it is located far off the cluster center. 10 100 400 sample size M87 is (in projection) near the X-ray gas emission peak (e.g., Kellogg et al. 1971), which is a good tracer for the Figure 1. Overview of photometric low-redshift BCG sur- potential minimum of the cluster. Moreover, the rising veys: Seigar et al.(2007); Krick & Bernstein(2005); Zhang velocity dispersion profile of the surrounding planetary et al.(2019); Zibetti et al.(2005); Gonzalez et al.(2005); Patel et al.(2006); Schombert(1986); Postman & Lauer nebulae is steeper for M87 (Longobardi et al. 2018) than (1995); Bernardi et al.(2007); Lauer et al.(2014); Donzelli for M49 (Hartke et al. 2018), showing that intraclus- et al.(2011). The so-far published VST survey of Early-type ter planetary nebulae are more centered on M87 than GAlaxieS (VEGAS) sample is shown by a blue "V" (Capac- on M49. The velocity dispersion profile of the globular cioli et al. 2015; Spavone et al. 2017, 2018; Cattapan et al. clusters rises toward the outskirts of M87 (C^ot´eet al. 2019). The dots embedded in the ellipse represent single- 2001) but it falls toward the outskirts of M49 (Sharples or double-target BCG observations. From top to bottom: et al. 1998), showing that intracluster globular clusters Jorgensen et al.(1992); Bender et al.(2015); Ferrarese et al. (2012); Feldmeier et al.(2002); Kormendy et al.(2009); Mi- are also more centered on M87. All of the arguments hos et al.(2005); Iodice et al.(2016). The arrows indicate above agree that M87 qualifies better as the BCG of the that the sample size is smaller than the label position in the Virgo cluster in our adopted definition. plot. Our survey (red) populates an unexplored parameter The currently widely accepted two-phase formation space region in sample size and depth. scenario (e.g., Contini et al. 2014, 2018) states that the BCG formed first by galactic mergers and the ICL was illustrates that so far, either the studied sample was rel- accreted afterward by a mixture of (1) galaxy harass- atively small (Gonzalez et al. 2005; Krick & Bernstein ment, that is, high-velocity encounters between satellite 2005; Patel et al. 2006; Seigar et al. 2007) or the sur- galaxies (Moore et al. 1996); (2) tidal stripping induced face brightness at the transition radius between the two by effects of dynamical friction against the whole clus- photometric components of double S´ersic(DS) BCGs ter potential (Byrd & Valtonen 1990; Gnedin 2003); and is mostly below the limiting magnitude of the surveys (3) preprocessing in smaller groups (Mihos 2004; Rudick (Postman & Lauer 1995; Bernardi et al. 2007; Donzelli et al. 2006). Remnants of these violent processes are et al. 2011; Lauer et al. 2014). In this paper, we present predicted by simulations to occur at low surface bright- a study that fulfills both criteria. We perform a statisti- 0 −2 nesses (SBs), mostly below SB & 29 g mag arcsec cal analysis of the SB profiles, isophotal shape profiles, (Rudick et al. 2009; Puchwein et al. 2010; Harris et al. and structural parameters of BCG+ICLs. An analysis 2017; Mancillas et al. 2019), and are confirmed by obser- of the correlations of these parameters with host cluster vations (e.g., Arnaboldi et al. 2012; Kormendy & Bender properties and various approaches to separating the ICL 2012; Iodice et al. 2017; Mihos et al. 2017). We refer to from the BCGs is reserved for an forthcoming paper. these remnants as accretion signatures. This paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we The build-up, shape, and substructure of BCG+ICL present our sample and selection criteria. The data and light profiles, as well as the types and abundances of ac- data reduction are described in section 3. Our methods cretion signatures, are sensitive probes for the dynam- to measure and combine the surface brightness profiles ical evolution of galaxy clusters (e.g., Puchwein et al. are described in section 4. Sections 3 and 4 are dedicated 2010; Cui et al. 2014). To constrain formation models, to readers who are interested in the image processing especially in the faint outskirts of BCGs, a large sam- techniques necessary for deep imaging. An extensive er- ple of BCGs with deep light profiles is needed. Figure1 ror analysis is given in section 5. We present our results Structure of Brightest Cluster Galaxies and Intracluster Light 3 75° 27 ] 60° 2 c 45° e s c 26 r 30° a g b a e 15° m d ' u 150° 120° 90° 60° 30° 0° 330° 300° 270° 240° 210° t g i [ t 0° 25 a l s s .