thick discs are defined to be disc - like components with a scale height larger than that of the `` canonical '' or `` classical '' discs .
they are most easily detected in close to edge - on galaxies in which they appear as a roughly exponential excess of light a few thin disc scale heights above the midplane .
they were first detected and described by tsikoudi ( 1979 ) and burstein ( 1979 ) . the milky way was soon found to also host a thick disc ( gilmore & reid 1983 ) made of old ( bensby et al .
2005 ) , metal - poor , and @xmath2-enhanced stars ( fuhrmann 1998 ; prochaska et al .
observations now suggest that thick discs in galaxies in the local universe are ubiquitous ( yoachim & dalcanton 2006 ; comern et al .
2011a ) .
we recently showed evidence of thick discs being significantly more massive than previously considered with stellar masses ranging from 0.3 to 3.0 times that of the thin disc depending on the galaxy mass and the assumed mass - to - light ratios ( comern et al .  2011b ; hereafter co11b ) .
this study confirmed that galaxies dominated by the thick disc are usually those with lower masses ( yoachim & dalcanton 2006 ) .
hosting such a large fraction of the stellar mass makes thick discs likely reservoirs of some of the `` local missing baryons '' .
a few galaxies , such as ngc  4013 , host an additional extended component which could be interpreted as a second thick disc or a flattened halo ( comern et al .
2011c ) .    the properties of those more massive than expected thick discs give some constraints on their origin .
higher mass galaxies could have their thick discs with a low relative mass explained by internal secular heating ( see , e.g. , bovy et al .
2012 ) , by the heating caused by the interaction with a satellite galaxy ( see , e.g. , qu et al .
2011 ) , by the accretion of stars from satellite galaxies ( see , e.g. , abadi et al .
2003 ) , and/or because of the radial migration of stars ( see , e.g. , schnrich & binney 2009 ; loebman et al .
2011 ) , but the very large thick disc mass fraction found in low - mass galaxies indicates an in situ origin during or shortly after the buildup of the galaxy for a large fraction of their thick disc stars .
two in situ and high - redshift thick disc formation models have been put forward .
elmegreen & elmegreen ( 2006 ) and bournaud et al .  (
2009 ) proposed a scenario where the thick disc forms from the primordial galaxy discs , which contained large clumps of star formation whose scale height was comparable to that of present - day thick discs . those large clumps would have dissolved into what we know as thick discs .
brook et al .
( 2007 ) proposed thick discs to be made of stars in gas - rich proto - galactic fragments which merged and of stars created during that merger . in both scenarios ,
the thin disc would have formed afterwards from gas remaining from the initial galaxy formation processes and from new gas accreted through cold flows .
these two models predict different properties for the thick discs .
if they have been created from the dissolution of giant star - forming clusters , one would expect them to be genuine discs , with a high rotation speed and a luminosity profile similar to that of thin discs .
if thick discs result from the merger of proto - galactic fragments they would , at least in some cases , host a significant fraction of lagging and/or counterrotating stars .
our comprehensive detection and modeling of thick+thin discs in edge - on galaxies started in co11b allow us to study breaks , both truncations and antitruncations , in the radial profile of the thick discs , hitherto not possible .
a radical truncation in the radial light profile was first discussed in edge - on galaxies by van der kruit ( 1979 ) and van der kruit and searle ( 1981a , b ; 1982 ) .
the break phenomenon is widely observed in local galaxies ( van der kruit and searle 1981b ; barteldrees and dettmar 1994 ; pohlen et al .
2000 ; de grijs et al .  2001 ; florido et al .
2001 ; kregel et al .  2002 ; kregel and van der kruit 2004 ; pohlen and trujillo 2006 ; florido et al .  2006a , b ) and at high redshift ( prez 2004 ; trujillo and pohlen 2005 ) . see for reviews of these optical studies van der kruit ( 2001 ) and pohlen et al .
( 2004b ) .
galaxies have been divided into three types depending on their disc properties ; type i , with an unbroken exponential ( freeman 1970 ) , type ii ( truncation ) , hosting a downbending break , and type iii ( antitruncation ) hosting a transition to a shallower exponential profile ( pohlen & trujillo 2006 ; erwin et al .
2008 ) , based on averaged radial light profiles .
this opens the possibility that some of the observed characteristics may be due to the superposition of the thin and thick discs in these galaxies . due to the low - surface - brightness nature of the thick disc , this
was left mostly unexplored .
pohlen et al .
( 2004a , 2007 ) do suggest a weakening of the truncation with height moving from the thin to the thick disc - dominated regime .
this has been confirmed by hubble space telescope observations over two truncations for all stellar populations ( de jong et al .
2007 , radburn - smith et al .  2012 ) .
the origin of truncations and antitruncations is under debate .
the former are hypothesized to be formed due to star - formation thresholds ( kennicutt 1989 ) , the point of maximum angular momentum of the original primordial cloud from which the galaxy has formed ( van der kruit 1987 ) , and/or by bar angular momentum redistribution ( debattista et al .
laurikainen & salo ( 2001 ) proved that many m  51-like galaxies have an antitruncation caused by the stripping of stars and gas from the disc during the interaction .
they numerically showed that these antitruncations could last for several gyr . also , a few antitruncations ( @xmath3 ) seem to be caused by the contribution of an extended bulge to the luminosity profile ( maltby et al .  2012 ) .
the main purpose of this paper is to obtain the luminosity profiles of thin and thick discs of nearly edge - on galaxies parallel to their midplane to further constrain their origin .
we also study truncations and antitruncations in thin and thick discs as separate features by fitting their luminosity profiles with a generalization of the function proposed by erwin et al .
( 2008 ) for the description of discs with breaks .
we used images from the spitzer survey of stellar structure in galaxies ( s@xmath4 g , sheth et al .
2010 ) which has imaged more than 2000 galaxies representative of the nearby universe ( radial velocity @xmath5 ) in @xmath6 and @xmath7 using the infrared array camera ( irac ; fazio et al .
the s@xmath4 g reaches a typical surface brightness of @xmath8 with a pixel size of @xmath9 and traces mostly the light of old stars with little dust absorption , which makes it ideal for the study of edge - on galaxies .
this paper is structured as follows .
we present the selected sample in section  [ secsample ] and we describe the fitting procedure in section  [ secfitting ] .
we continue in section  [ seccaveat ] by addressing what would happen if some assumptions made when producing the fits were not applicable to our sample of galaxies .
we show and discuss our results in section  [ secresults ] and section  [ secdiscussion ] and we present our conclusions in section  [ secconclusions ] .
we looked at each of the 2132 galaxies available in the s@xmath4 g archive by february 15 , 2012 and we manually selected disc galaxies appearing to be edge - on with morphological types @xmath10 ( @xmath11 from hyperleda ; paturel et al .
later type galaxies were rejected because of their generally ill - defined structure .
we have assumed that @xmath11 can be `` reasonably reliably '' determined for edge - on galaxy as claimed by buta ( 2012 ) .
we also rejected galaxies with distorted morphologies , with indications of being not quite edge - on ( with visible spiral arms or resonance rings ) , or discs that are too dim to certainly assess their orientation . when possible , sloan digital sky survey data release 8 ( aihara et al .  2011 ) imaging was used in order to ensure close to edge - on galaxy orientation by looking at the position of the midplane dust .
the resulting sample has 169 galaxies which includes 29 out of 30 galaxies studied in detail in co11b .
the remaining galaxy , ic  1970 , was excluded due to some hint of spiral structure .
all those galaxies underwent the image processing and fitting procedure described in sections  [ secmakever ] and [ secverfit ] . in section  [ sectrim1 ]
we describe how , after fitting thin+thick+gas disc profiles to galaxy luminosity profiles perpendicular to their midplanes , we applied additional selection criteria aiming to remove faint galaxies , galaxies with extended envelopes , and/or badly fitted galaxies , in order to ensure the data quality and we built up a final sample with 70 galaxies .
in order to obtain luminosity profiles of thin and thick discs parallel to galaxy midplanes and to study them we followed a procedure that is described in detail in the next subsections :    * we prepared a grid of synthetic luminosity profiles perpendicular to the galaxy midplanes , as done in co11b .
the selected profile was that of a combined thin , thick , and gas disc gravitationally coupled in local isothermal equilibrium for galaxies with @xmath12 . for earlier - type galaxies we only considered a thin and a thick disc .
( section  [ sectsynt ] ) .
* we extracted the observed luminosity profiles perpendicular to galaxy midplanes using an average of 3.6 and 4.5 @xmath13-band s@xmath4 g images ( vertical luminosity profiles ; section  [ secmakever ] ) .
* we fitted the observed luminosity profiles by comparing them with the grid of synthetic models as done in co11b ( section  [ secverfit ] ) . * using the vertical luminosity profile fits , we determined the height , @xmath14 , above which the thick disc dominates the light emission ( section  [ secdefrs ] ) .
* by looking at the properties of vertical luminosity profile fits and the resulting @xmath14 we trimmed the 169 galaxy sample down to 70 in order to ensure the quality of the data .
the galaxy rejection criteria were aimed to remove galaxies with bad fits , having extended envelopes , or being too faint and thus having noisy luminosity profiles ( section  [ sectrim1 ] ) . * knowing @xmath14 has allowed us to determine the region dominated by the thin and thick disc light ; thus , we have been able to prepare luminosity profiles of the thin and thick discs parallel to the galaxy midplanes .
we also prepared a profile including light from both discs ( horizontal luminosity profiles ; section  [ secmakehor ] ) . * the horizontal luminosity profiles of both the thin and the thick discs , as well as those including light from both , were fitted with a generalization of the function used by erwin et al .
( 2008 ) to describe discs with breaks ( section  [ secfithor ] ) .      in order to prepare thin and thick disc luminosity profiles parallel to the midplane of a galaxy , it is fundamental to know in which range in heights above the midplane each disc dominates . to do so , we fitted luminosity profiles perpendicular to galaxy midplanes with thin+thick+gas disc functions for galaxies with @xmath12 . for earlier - type galaxies we set the gas disc to have a zero density , which is equivalent to assuming a thin+thick disc function . assuming little or no gas in these galaxies
solves one of the fitting biases discussed in section  [ secnogas ] , namely that of gas - depleted galaxies with a thick disc mass overestimated because being fitted with a function accounting for gas .    as in co11b
, we assumed that galaxy discs are relaxed structures whose particles behave like those of a fluid in equilibrium .
we also assumed that discs are made of three gravitationally coupled baryonic discs  gas disc , thin disc and thick disc  which feel the effect of something acting like a dark matter halo .
then we can write following the equation from narayan & jog ( 2002 ) : @xmath15 where @xmath16 refers to the thin disc , @xmath11 to the thick disc and @xmath17 to the gas disc ; the subindex @xmath18 can be either @xmath16 , @xmath11 , or @xmath17 , @xmath19 stands for the mass density , and @xmath20 for the vertical velocity dispersion of the component .
@xmath21 is the term describing dark matter effects .
this is a set of three coupled second order differential equations which we solved by using the newmark-@xmath22 method with @xmath23 and @xmath24 . @xmath22 and @xmath25 are internal parameters of the algorithm which have been set to make it unconditionally stable ( newmark 1959 ) .    when integrating equation  ( [ equilibrium ] )
we assumed that the isothermal hypothesis is true .
this hypothesis implies that for a given galactic radius , @xmath26 , the vertical velocity dispersion is constant with height , @xmath27 ( @xmath28 ) .
we also assumed that the effect of dark matter is negligible ( @xmath29 ; see justification in co11b and section  [ seccaveat ] ) .
line - of - sight effects were avoided by assuming that all of the discs have similar scale lengths and that the scale heights remain roughly constant with varying @xmath26 .
this last assumption is based on the fact that s@xmath4 g discs do not flare significantly within the optical radius and has been widely used in the literature ( van der kruit & searle 1981a ; yoachim & dalcanton 2006 ; co11b ) .
we also assumed that the face - on gas surface mass density for galaxies with @xmath12 is 0.2 times that of the thin disc at all radii .
a @xmath30 gas fraction is slightly higher than that found in the milky way at solar radius ( banerjee & jog 2007 ) and we have shown in co11b that it yields slightly better fits than when not accounting for gas .
it is also a fraction of gas representative of what is found in our galaxy sample according to our gas fraction calculations presented in section  [ secv120 ] .
we set @xmath31 for galaxies with @xmath32 .
finally , we assumed @xmath33 in rough accordance with milky way velocity dispersion measurements ( spitzer 1978 ; stark 1984 ; clemens 1985 ; lewis & freeman 1989 ) .
equation  ( [ equilibrium ] ) provides mass density profiles .
for obtaining luminosity profiles some assumptions about @xmath34 and @xmath35 , the mass - to - light ratios of the thin and the thick discs , were needed .
different @xmath36 values can be calculated from different star formation histories for the thin and the thick discs .
reasonable star formation histories yield @xmath37 ( see in discussion in section  3.3 in co11b ) . in this paper
we use the most conservative value  that with lower relative thick disc masses  @xmath38 .    when integrating equation  ( [ equilibrium ] ) ,
six boundary conditions are needed . since the maximum density is found in the midplane , we set @xmath39 .
the other boundary conditions we used are the mass densities of each disc in the midplane @xmath40 ( hereafter @xmath41 ) .
we solved equation  ( [ equilibrium ] ) for a grid of models with different central density ratios ( @xmath42 ) and different vertical velocity dispersion ratios , @xmath43 .
we made integrations for 150 values of @xmath42 , equally spaced from 0.015 to 2.25 , and for 150 values of @xmath44 , equally spaced from 1.1 to 16.0 .
the solutions in this grid were then compared to observed luminosity profiles as described in the following subsections .
we selected the 3.6 and 4.5 @xmath45m - band images for the 169 galaxies in our original sample and we subtracted the background from each image .
the background was measured by selecting several tens of @xmath46 pixel boxes far away from the midplane of the galaxy and bright stars and then by obtaining the median value of the pixels in the box .
the selected background value was that of the median of the individual medians found for each box .
the angular distance between the boxes in which we measured the background and the midplane of the galaxy for galaxies fitting in the irac chip ( @xmath47 ; sheth et al .
2010 ) is limited by irac s field of view ( @xmath48 ) and is typically around 100 .
for the few galaxies which required a mosaic , the sky has been measured in boxes as close to the border of the mosaic as possible in the direction perpendicular to the midplane .
the median distance of the galaxies for which we studied the breaks is 29.8mpc ( see section  [ sectrim1 ] for details on the original sample trimming ) . at that distance ,
100  correspond to 14.4kpc , which may cause our estimated sky value to be actually the stellar halo level .
bakos & trujillo ( 2012 ) found that haloes start affecting the luminosity profiles of galaxies at @xmath49 . because we have not found color indexes including irac filters for stellar haloes in the literature , we have used globular cluster colors as a proxi for halo colors in order to test whether this error in the sky subtraction could affect our analysis . the reddest globular cluster in the sfample of spitler et al .
( 2008 ) has @xmath50 .
this globular cluster has @xmath51 ( spitler et al .
2008 ) and using the color transformations for population  ii stars in jordi et al .
( 2006 ) , we can afirm that @xmath52 within @xmath53mag .
that implies that the halo would start affecting our luminosity profiles at @xmath54 .
since our break detection limit is within the range @xmath55 ( see section  [ sectrunc ] ) stellar haloes are not likely to affect our analysis of the background for subtraction .
typical one-@xmath20 errors of the background determination of the addition of the 3.6 and 4.5@xmath45 m images are around 0.0015counts , corresponding to a surface brightness level of @xmath56 .
this error bar was measured by finding the standard deviation of different background values obtained using bootstrapping over the local background values in the individual @xmath46 pixel boxes .
the value of the measured background does not vary significantly when increasing the box size from @xmath46 to @xmath57 pixels .
however , the background error rarely is the limiting factor when fitting the luminosity profiles ; the actual main limiting factor is the quality of the mask as explained at the end of section  [ secverfit ] .    using the average of the sky - subtracted 3.6 and 4.5 @xmath45m - band images we produced four luminosity profiles for each galaxy : at each side of the bulge , central cluster or presumed center along the disc long axis for projected galactocentric distances @xmath58 and @xmath59 ( top panel in figure  [ example ] ) .
we used @xmath60 values from hyperleda except for ngc  4111 , for which we preferred the third reference catalog of bright galaxies value ( rc3 ; de vaucouleurs et al .
1991 ) due to the hyperleda value being clearly underestimated .
the profiles were prepared by adding the counts above and below the midplane in order to get a unique profile for each bin and averaging for each @xmath27 over non - masked pixels .
we used manually refined masks from the s@xmath4 g pipeline  2 ( sheth et al .
the flux was transformed into magnitudes using a zero point @xmath61 .
we increased the signal - to - noise at low surface brightness levels by smoothing the luminosity profiles . to do so
, we found the height of the first profile data point for which the statistical error of the photometry was larger than 10% of the signal .
we named that height @xmath62 .
then , for every height , the photometry was obtained by averaging over the range of heights @xmath63 , where @xmath64 is the pixel size .
thus , smoothing was small close to the midplane ( @xmath65 ) , but significant for low signal - to - noise regions , where @xmath66 .
c c + &   + &     both synthetic and observed luminosity profiles were scaled in the same way before the actual fitting . in both cases
the midplane surface brightness was set to be one . in co11b
we had stretched the @xmath27 axis in such a way that the surface brightness at @xmath67 was equal to one tenth of the surface brightness at @xmath68 , @xmath69 .
thus , the synthetic and the observed luminosity were forced to intersect at the point for which the luminosity is one tenth of the midplane one . in the present paper
, we made four different vertical scalings , @xmath69 , @xmath70 , @xmath71 , and @xmath72 .
for practical purposes , what this stretching does is to set the luminosity at which the synthetic and the observed luminosity profiles intersect .
the synthetic fits were convolved with a gaussian kernel with a fwhm of @xmath73 , which is the approximate fwhm of both 3.6 and 4.5@xmath13-band s@xmath4 g point - spread functions made by stacking several hundreds non - saturated stars ( s@xmath4 g `` super - psf '' ; sheth et al .
2010 ) .
the fitting of the observed luminosity profiles was done by following the procedure described in section  3.5 and figure  4 in co11b . basically ,
after being scaled , the observed luminosity profiles for each radial bin in each galaxy were compared to the grid of synthetic models .
that was done by minimizing the differences of the brightest section of the profiles starting at a dynamic range of @xmath74 and then going to fainter levels in steps of @xmath75 down to @xmath76 .
we selected as the `` correct '' fit the one with the largest @xmath77 having a @xmath78 , where @xmath79 is the mean squared difference in magnitudes between both profiles .
this procedure was only done down to @xmath80 in co11b .
the lower fitted surface brightness for a given fit is @xmath81 and the midplane luminosity is @xmath82 .
thus , for a given fit , the dynamical range @xmath77 over which a fit has been produced is @xmath83 .
@xmath81 is reached at a height @xmath84 which is typically on the order of the smoothing scale height , @xmath62 .    in some cases ,
no @xmath78 fit was found for a given bin and thus this bin was flagged to be non - fittable .
the code also includes a module for computing the effect of some dust absorption in the midplane as described in co11b .
an example of a vertical luminosity profile fit is presented in figure  [ example ] and all the vertical luminosity profiles for our final sample galaxies appear in figure  [ verticalfits ] of appendix  [ appendixver ] .
the errors in the photometric profile depict the statistical error of the averaging used at obtaining each photometric point . in spite of the care which has been taken at determining the background level , several profiles show a significant flux at large height ( at a level of @xmath85 ) .
there are several possible explanations for this : in some cases , the galaxies are surrounded by a crowd of globular clusters and/or foreground stars whose extended wings are hard to distinguish from thick disc light and may have not been properly masked . in the case of galaxies with a larger angular size , large - scale background variations as those described in comern et al .
( 2011a ) may be present and may cause artifacts in some profiles .
also , large saturated stars affect some of the profiles .
finally , some galaxies may have faint extended haloes at a brightness level comparable to our detection threshold .
the restrictions applied at choosing right fits ( mainly selecting as good fits those with @xmath78 ) , precludes this residual light from affecting our results .
a key parameter needed for producing the luminosity profiles of the thin and the thick discs parallel to midplanes is the range of heights for which each disc dominates the light emission .
we defined @xmath14 to be the height above which a fraction @xmath86 of the light is emitted by the thick disc according to the fits to the vertical luminosity profiles .
this value was calculated for each of the correctly fitted bins .    in the example
fit presented in figure  [ example ] , the @xmath14 for each bin is indicated by a solid vertical line in each of the middle and lower row panels .      in order for a fit made for a given bin in a given galaxy to be further considered for use in this paper , several conditions
were implemented :    * a few galaxies , such as ngc  4013 , have relatively bright components in addition to the thin and thick discs ( co11b ; comern et al .
these components are likely to be a second thick disc or a bright squashed halo . in order to avoid including galaxies with wrong fits due to these components
, we excluded fits for which @xmath87 .
this threshold ensures that , for most cases , possible additional components are dim enough not to significantly affect the fit .
* the statistical uncertainties for fits made in very faint galaxies are large . to minimize this problem ,
we have only flagged as valid those fits for which the midplane surface brightness is @xmath88 .
* in a few cases , as described in co11b , the fit is compatible with a single disc .
this is most likely to happen for the fits done over a small @xmath77 , for which the fitted dynamical range is not large enough to allow distinguishing between both discs .
we rejected fits compatible with a single disc . the criterion
to detect those fits is slightly more restrictive than in co11b , namely that the mean squared difference between the fitted solution and a single - disc profile is @xmath89 .
one of our assumptions when producing the fits is that the scale lengths of both thin and thick discs are similar and that their scale heights do not vary too much with radius .
this implies that @xmath14 should be roughly constant with the projected radius , @xmath90 . as a final quality check for our fits , we selected those galaxies having more than one radial bin with a `` good '' fit according to the criteria expressed in the list and we looked for the largest and smallest @xmath14 among those fits .
if the ratio between these two was smaller than 1.5 , the galaxy was included in the final sample .
if the ratio was larger than 1.5 , the galaxy was only included if the two @xmath58 had a `` good '' fit and the ratio between their @xmath14 was smaller than 1.5 .
the fits for the bins with @xmath59 were then rejected and only those with @xmath58 were considered when measuring global properties of the galaxy ( such as the average @xmath14 and the disc relative masses , @xmath91 ) .
this was the case for 10 galaxies and was made so as not to exclude those galaxies with flares or truncations potentially happening at @xmath59 or galaxies with noisy profiles at this range of projected radii .
galaxies with varying @xmath14 ( and thus excluded from the final sample ) , have not necessarily intrinsically largely varying scale lengths .
for example , in the case of galaxies with a small angular size , they are likely to have a foreground star or a globular cluster covering a large fraction of the fitting bin at some height . in some cases , masking those features may be as harmful for the vertical luminosity profiles as not masking them at all , because it will cause that different heights will have their surface brightness measured in significantly different ranges of projected radii .
this would result into unreliable fits which are excluded by the @xmath14 stability criterion .
the @xmath14 stability selection criterion is also useful at removing galaxies whose thin disc is so thin that it is barely or not resolved .
applying all these criteria trimmed the original sample from 169 to 70 galaxies .
the properties of these 70 galaxies are presented in table  [ sampledata ] . these restrictive criteria
cause eleven out of thirty galaxies included in the co11b final sample not to appear in this paper
. fits in galaxies of the final sample which have not been used are labeled as `` not used '' in figure  [ verticalfits ] of appendix  [ appendixver ] .
the distance distribution of the 70 selected galaxies is presented in figure  [ distances ] .
the median distance of the sample is 29.8mpc .    for each of the 70 galaxies in our sample ,
as done in co11b , the vertical luminosity profile fits were used for estimating the ratio of the stellar mass of the thick and the thin disc for each galaxy , @xmath91 , using the following expression : @xmath92 where @xmath93 refers to the edge - on column mass densities , the subindex @xmath94 refers to the different bins in galactocentric distance for which `` good '' fits have been obtained and @xmath95 is the midplane surface brightness for a given bin in magnitudes .    [ cols="^ " , ]     as seen in section  [ secantitrunc ] and figure  [ anti ] , the scale length of the thin disc profile after an antitruncation break seems to correlate with the thick disc scale length at that projected radius .
a visual inspection of the fits in figure  [ verticalfits ] shows that , in many cases , the shape of the luminosity profiles of type  iii , type  ii+iii , and type  ii+iii+ii thin discs after the antitruncation break radius , @xmath96 , are very similar to that of the thick disc in the same projected radius range .
it is therefore possible that it is not the thin disc itself which antitruncates and that what we are actually seeing is that the thick disc dominates the light emission even in the range of heights @xmath97 for @xmath98 .    in order to test that possibility
, we used the fits to vertical luminosity profiles and we calculated the mean flux per pixel emitted by the thick disc in the range @xmath97 ( height range for thin disc horizontal luminosity profiles ) divided by the mean flux per pixel emitted at @xmath99 ( height range for thick disc horizontal luminosity profiles ) .
this value , which we will call @xmath100 , was averaged over all the valid vertical bins . however , because the shape of the vertical thick disc luminosity profile changes in the absence of a thin disc , we calculated a second value , @xmath101 , which measures the same ratio if the thin disc was removed but the thick disc face - on column mass density and vertical velocity dispersion were kept constant . as seen in figure  [ thindiscremoved ] , @xmath102 .
the @xmath100 and @xmath101 values can be used for estimating the brightness of the thick disc in the range of heights @xmath97 , but we have to consider that they have been calculated at low @xmath90 and can only be considered a useful approximation to what happens in galaxy outskirts . in figure
[ verticalfits ] , the lower limit of the gray area is the estimate of the thick disc brightness at that range ( @xmath97 ) in the absence of a thin disc calculated by moving the red symbols up by a factor @xmath101 .
the upper limit of the gray area represents the thick disc surface brightness estimate for the range @xmath97 in the case of a thin disc whose face - on column mass density relative to the thick disc is similar to that found at low @xmath90 ( moving the red symbols up by a factor @xmath100 ) .
thus , for the outskirts of a galaxy , the lower limit of the gray area symbols represents what we have defined to be the thin disc if it was only the low @xmath27 part of a thick disc and no significant genuine thin disc was found there .
of the 26 thin discs with antitruncations 14 ( eso  157 - 049 , eso  440 - 027 , ic  1553 , ngc  0522 , ngc  1163 , ngc  1422 , ngc  3454 , ngc  4330 , ngc  4359 , ngc  4607 , ngc  5529 , ugc  06526 , ugc  12518 , and ugc  12692 ) are well fitted by the lower limit of the gray area , meaning that they are compatible with the range of projected radii @xmath98 being dominated by the thick disc at all heights . in six galaxies ( eso  469 - 015 , ic  1576 ,
ugc  00903 , ugc  01970 , ugc  07086 , and ugc  10288 ) , the thick disc alone does not seem to be bright enough to account for all the light for heights
@xmath97 at @xmath98 . in four galaxies ( ngc  1596 , ngc  3628 , ngc  4081 , and ugc  08737 ) our thick disc brightness estimate at @xmath97 overestimates the actual light emission . for ngc  5084 , the antitruncation is an artifact caused by the presence of an extended bulge .
finally , for one galaxy ( ugc  10297 ) , the thick disc profile is too dim at @xmath98 to be able to obtain any conclusion .
it thus seems that at least 14 out of 26 antitruncated galaxies , the antitruncation is actually an artifact caused by the presence of a thick disc .
this number is probably a low estimate , because of the uncertainties of using @xmath101 for inferring the behavior of the disc in its outskirts .
a legitimate question is that if for @xmath98 we are mostly detecting the thick disc at all heights , why its horizontal luminosity profile is almost always flatter for @xmath103 ( red horizontal luminosity profiles ) than in the range @xmath97 ( blue horizontal luminosity profiles ) ?
this can be explained naturally if we consider that at @xmath104 there is still a small fraction of stars belonging to the thin disc , meaning that the vertical thick disc luminosity profile becomes more peaked ( see figure  [ thindiscremoved ] ) than when the thin disc mass fraction becomes negligible for @xmath105 .
this progressive broadening of the thick disc vertical luminosity profile with increasing projected radii causes the horizontal luminosity profile for @xmath97 to be steeper than that measured at @xmath99
. additionally , unmasked faint stars and extended psf wings are more likely to affect the much dimmer @xmath99 range , potentially further contributing to make its horizontal luminosity profile shallower .
here we have shown that genuine antitruncations are rare ( twelve at maximum out of 70 or less than @xmath106 ) and that most of the features which would be considered an antitrucation in a face - on view are actually an artifact caused by the superposition of a thin and a thick disc with different scale lengths .
however , it seems that several of the found antitruncations are genuine and could be a signature of a past interaction  as suggested by laurikainen & salo ( 2001 ) .
laurikainen & salo ( 2001 ) showed that many m  51-like interacting galaxies have antitruncations .
they used numerical simulations to show that the redistribution of material caused by an interaction may last for several gyr , which could explain the presence of genuine antitruncations in isolated galaxies .
also , some of the antitruncations which do not seem related to the thick disc could be caused by the presence of outer rings as suggested by erwin et al .
( 2005 ) .
in section  [ secmasses ] we found that thick discs with @xmath1 have roughly constant relative masses with respect the thin disc ( @xmath0 ) , and that the relative stellar mass of the thick disc increases for @xmath108 .
this threshold was not noticed in co11b due to smaller statistics and a larger scatter in data due to less restrictive quality selection criteria .
however , it was detected by yoachim & dalcanton ( 2006 ) .
if , as indicated in co11b , thick discs would have formed in situ at high redshift and have their thin discs formed from gas remaining from the formation process and posterior cold accretion , at least two factors could contribute to make @xmath91 larger in less massive galaxies :    * supernova feedback is more efficient at removing the gas from shallower potential wells .
this is because in a high - mass galaxy , gas expelled by supernovae during the thick disc build - up could eventually come back to the galaxy and be used for building the thin disc .
gas expelled from low - mass galaxies would be less likely to come back . * lower - mass galaxies are dynamically younger than higher - mass ones .
all galaxies have already formed their thick disc , and have later started to form the thin disc . because of the slowest evolution of lower - mass galaxies , their thin discs are younger and less developed , implying a larger fraction of gas in them .
it is important to stress the point that less massive galaxies are likely to expel a larger gas fraction through supernova feedback than massive ones . indeed , as pointed out by elmegreen & elmegreen ( 2006 ) , if a thick disc formed at high redshift had only @xmath109 of the total mass of the disc ( as it is the case for today s thick discs in some massive galaxies ) , its scale height would shrink considerably when the gas which formed the thin disc , the remaining 80% in mass , was accreted .
this could cause , if the thick disc scale height was not large enough ( several kpc ) that the thick discs would be indistinguishable from the thin discs in vertical luminosity profiles . the thick disc scale height shrinking would be smaller in a low - mass galaxy accreting a lower fraction of gas ( @xmath110 ) , which would make the original thick disc formed at high redshift much easier to detect .
thus , what we observe as a thick discs in today s low - mass galaxies , would be mostly the original in situ thick discs formed at high - redshifts . for massive galaxies , which have expelled less gas through supernova feedback ,
it is possible that this disc would have shrunk so much that it would be undetectable . in this case
, there would be no genuine thick discs , but a continuous distribution of scale heights created by the secular heating of the thin disc by its own overdensities in accordance with the claim from bovy et al .
( 2012 ) for the milky way .
significant thin disc heating by satellites is likely to be discarded due to the absence of widespread flares as discussed in co11b .
the thick disc being mostly made of stars stripped from satellites is also discarded because that mechanism would lead thick discs significantly less massive than what is observed ( see co11b for a full discussion on these two points ) .
radial migration ( schnrich & binney  2009 ) could also explain the presence of thick discs in massive galaxies , but fails at explaining the presence of very massive thick discs in low - mass galaxies which are dynamically younger than high - mass ones .    a way of testing whether @xmath91 is higher in low - mass galaxies due to a slower dynamical evolution is to recalculate @xmath111 by considering that , in addition to the thin disc stars , it includes the gas disc .
if low - mass galaxies were less efficient at forming stars , the new @xmath91 would show a flatter trend with the rotation velocity , @xmath112 . to calculate the mass of gas contained in a disc
, we used the 21-cm corrected for self - absorption flux from hyperleda and we converted it to a gas mass using the expression @xmath113 where @xmath114 is the area of the 21-cm line profile expressed in mjykms@xmath115 and @xmath116 is the distance to the galaxy expressed in mpc ( zwaan et al .
1997 ) . as done in yoachim & dalcanton ( 2006 ) , we made the correction @xmath117 to account for helium and metals and we did not apply a correction for molecular gas .
the new @xmath91 values have been calculated considering that the absolute @xmath6 magnitude of the sun in ab system is @xmath118 ( oh et al .
2008 ) , that @xmath119 , and that @xmath38 .
this has been done for all except three galaxies in the sample .
those three galaxies had no @xmath114 value available in hyperleda .
the result of including the gas into the thin disc is shown in figure  [ plotgas ] in which the diamond symbols represent @xmath91 once the gas has been included in the thin disc .
we note a slight tendency for low - mass galaxies to get their relative thick disc masses lowered by a larger factor by this operation than in the case of high - mass galaxies . when including the gas in the thin disc , the decrease in the thick disc relative mass fraction is @xmath120 when @xmath108 and @xmath121 for galaxies with @xmath1 .
this would support the idea of lower - mass discs having a slower evolution than higher - mass galaxies and having transformed less gas into thin disc stars .
however , a definitive quantification of this effect can not be obtained without knowing the mass - to - light ratio of the discs .
we are working on this quantification and we will be publish it in a follow - up paper .
recent works suggest that thick discs are formed in situ at high redshift .
so far , the easier way the study thin and thick discs as separate features is by looking at edge - on galaxies .
breaks ( truncations and antitruncations ) in disc galaxies have been until now mostly studied for the disc as a whole , without distinguishing the light of the thin and the thick disc .
several theories compete for explaining the origin of such breaks .
truncations have been explained by dynamical arguments related with the conservation of angular momentum during galaxy formation , by star formation thresholds , and by the redistribution of angular momentum by a bar .
antitruncations have in some cases been linked to interactions and mergers .    in order to study a significant sample of edge - on galaxies ( 70 )
, we produced luminosity profiles of thin and thick discs parallel to galaxy midplanes from the average of the 3.6 and 4.5@xmath122 images from the spitzer survey of stellar structures in galaxies ( s@xmath4 g ) . the vertical height dominated by each disc
was derived from luminosity profiles perpendicular to midplanes done in a similar way to that described in comern et al .
( 2011b ) . in brief , we fitted the observed vertical luminosity profiles by comparing them with a grid of models made by solving the equations of three gravitationally coupled vertically isothermal discs ( thin , thick , and gas discs ) .
we defined the range of heights for which the thick disc dominates that height ( named @xmath14 ) above which it emits 90% of the light .
we defined a height , @xmath123 at which the @xmath80 level was reached for the fitted vertical bins .
the thick disc horizontal luminosity profile was made by averaging the light emission for @xmath103 and the thin disc one was made by averaging light in @xmath97 .    once the thin and thick disc luminosity profiles parallel to midplanes were created , we fitted them with a integrated over the line of sight generalization of the function used by erwin et al .
( 2008 ) to describe discs with breaks .
the conclusions of this paper are :    * the position of our breaks are compatible with those fitted in face - on galaxies . *
horizontal luminosity profiles for thin discs are often truncated ( 77% of cases ) and also have a significant number of antitruncations ( 40% of cases ) . according to our fits ,
thick discs truncate with a frequency of 31% , although some extra truncations can not be discarded at a lower surface brightness than our detection threshold .
antitruncations are rare in our thick disc sample ( 6% ) and are in three out of four cases artifacts caused by an extended bulge . *
when thick discs truncate , they do so at a radius usually compatible with that of the truncation of the thin disc .
however , not all truncated thin discs are associated with a truncated thick disc .
this dichotomy suggests two different mechanisms creating truncations : one  necessarily of dynamical origin  affecting both discs and one affecting only the thin disc .
another possibility is that the same mechanism creates a truncation in the thin disc or in both depending on some galactic property which has not been studied in this paper ( such as bar or kinematical properties ) .
* antitruncations in thin discs seem to be related , in more than half of the cases , to the superposition of a thin and a thick disc with different scale lengths .
thus , for those thin discs , the part outside the antitruncation would actually be the thick disc .
we estimate the fraction of genuine thin disc antitruncations to be at maximum 15% .
this is less than half of those that would be expected from a deep enough fit to a face - on galaxy sample . * because our sample is much larger and better selected than that used in comern et al .
( 2011b ) , we have been able to further constrain the shape of the relation between the stellar mass of the thick disc relative to that of the thin disc , @xmath91 , and the galaxy circular velocity , @xmath112 originally found by yoachim & dalcanton ( 2006 ) ( figure  [ plotgas ] ) .
we found that galaxies with @xmath1 have a roughly constant @xmath91 . from @xmath107 downwards , @xmath91 increases dramatically with , in some cases , @xmath124 .
for these galaxies , the high @xmath91 could be caused by a combination of a high efficiency of supernova feedback that removes gas from the weak potential well of the young galaxy and limits the eventual mass of the thin disc and a slower dynamical evolution causing the stellar thin discs to be younger and less massive than in higher - mass galaxies .
in the latter case we showed that , if we assume the same @xmath36 for all galaxies , when gas is included in the mass of the thin disc , galaxies with @xmath108 have @xmath91 values that are more similar to those in galaxies with @xmath1 .
this similarity implies that part of the high value for @xmath91 low mass galaxies is the result of thin disc youth : the thin disc mass has not formed stars yet .
the authors wish to thank the entire s@xmath4 g team for their efforts in this project .
ea and ab thank the centre national dtudes spatiales for financial support .
ks , j - cm - m , tk , and tm acknowledge support from the national radio astronomy observatory , which is a facility of the national science foundation operated under cooperative agreement by associated universities , inc .
we thank our anonymous referee for comments that helped to improve the paper .
this work is based on observations and archival data made with the spitzer space telescope , which is operated by the jet propulsion laboratory , california institute of technology under a contract with nasa .
we are grateful to the dedicated staff at the spitzer science center for their help and support in planning and execution of this exploration science program .
we also gratefully acknowledge support from nasa jpl / spitzer grant rsa 1374189 provided for the s@xmath4 g project .
funding for sdss - iii has been provided by the alfred p.  sloan foundation , the participating institutions , the national science foundation , and the u.s .
department of energy office of science .
the sdss - iii web site is http://www.sdss3.org/.    sdss - iii is managed by the astrophysical research consortium for the participating institutions of the sdss - iii collaboration including the university of arizona , the brazilian participation group , brookhaven national laboratory , university of cambridge , carnegie mellon university , university of florida , the french participation group , the german participation group , harvard university , the instituto de astrofisica de canarias , the michigan state / notre dame / jina participation group , johns hopkins university , lawrence berkeley national laboratory , max planck institute for astrophysics , new mexico state university , new york university , ohio state university , pennsylvania state university , university of portsmouth , princeton university , the spanish participation group , university of tokyo , university of utah , vanderbilt university , university of virginia , university of washington , and yale university .
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 .
99    abadi , m.  g. , navarro , j.  f. , steinmetz , m. , & eke , v.  r.  2003 , apj , 597 , 21    aihara , h. , allende - prieto , c. , an . , d. , et al .  2011 , apjs , 193 , 29    bakos , j. , & trujillo , i.  2012 , submitted to mnras , ( arxiv:1207.7023 )    banerjee , a. , & jog , c.  j.  2007 , apj , 622 , 335    barteldrees , a. , & dettmar , r .- j .
1994 , a&as , 103 , 475    bensby , t. , feltzing , s. , lundstrm , i. , & ilyin , i.  2005 , a&a , 433 , 185    bigiel , f. , leroy , a. , brinks , e. , et al .
2008 , aj , 136 , 2846    bournaud , f. , elmegreen , b.  g. , & martig , m.  2009 , apj , 707 , l1    bovy , j. , rix , h .- w . , &
hogg , d.  w.  2012 , apj , 751 , 131    brook , c. , richard , s. , kawata , d. , martel , h. , & gibson , b.  k.  2007 , apj , 658 , 60    burstein , d.  1979 , apj , 234 , 829    buta , r.  j.  2012 , in planets , stars , and stellar systems , vol .
series editor t.  d.  oswalt , volume editor w.  c.  keel , springer reference    buta , r.  j. , sheth , k. , regan , m. , et al .
2010 , apjs , 190 , 147    clemens , d.  p.  1985 ,
apj , 295 , 422    comern , s. , elmegreen , b.  g. , knapen , j.  h. , et al .  2011c , apj , 738 , l17    comern , s. , elmegreen , b.  g. , knapen , j.  h. , et al .  2011b , apj , 741 , 28 ( co11b )    comern , s. , knapen , j.  h. , sheth , k. , et al .
2011a , apj , 729 , 18    dalcanton , j.  j. , yoachim , p. , & bernstein , r.  a.  2004 , aj , 608 , 189    debattista , v.  p. , mayer , l. , carollo , c.  m. , et al .
2006 , apj , 645 , 209    de grijs , r. , kregel , m. , & wesson , k.  h.  2001 , mnras , 324 , 1074    de jong , r.  s. , seth , a.  c. , radburn - smith , d.  j. , et al .
2007 , apj , 667 , l49    de vaucouleurs , g. , de vaucouleurs , a. , corwin , h.  g. , et al .
1991 , third reference catalog of bright galaxies ( new york : springer ) ( rc3 )    elmegreen , b.  g. , & elmegreen , d.  m.  2006 , apj , 650 , 644    erwin , p. , beckman , j.  e. , & pohlen , m.  2005 , apj , 626 , l81    erwin , p. , pohlen , m. , & beckman , j.  e.  2008 , aj , 135 , 20    fazio , g.  g. , hora , j.  l. , allen , l.  e. , et al .  2004 , apjs , 154 , 10    florido , e. , battaner , e. , guijarro , a. , garzn , f. , & castillo - morales , a.  2006a , a&a , 455 , 467    florido , e. , battaner , e. , guijarro , a. , garzn , f. , & castillo - morales , a.  2006a , a&a , 455 , 475    florido , e. , battaner , e. , guijarro , a. , garzn , f. , & jimnez - vicente , j.  2001 , a&a , 378 , 82    freeman k.  c.  1970 , apj , 160 , 811    fuhrmann , k.  1998 , a&a , 338 , 161    gilmore , g. , & reid , n.  1983 , mnras , 202 , 1025    gutirrez , l. , erwin , p. , aladro , r. , & beckman , j.  e.  2011 , aj , 142 , 145    haynes , m.  p.  1979 , aj , 84 , 1830    iwrin , j.  a. , kennedy , h. , parkin , t. , & madden , s.  2007 , a&a , 474 , 461    jordi , k. , grebel , e.  k. , & ammon , k.  2006 , a&a , 460 , 339    kennicutt , jr . , r.  c.  1989 , apj , 344 , 685    kregel , m. , & van der kruit , p.  c.  2004 , mnras , 355 , 143    kregel , m. , van der kruit , p.  c. , & de blok , w.  j.  g.  2004 , mnras , 352 , 768    kregel , m. , van der kruit , p.  c. , & de grijs , r.  2002 , mnras , 334 , 646    laurikainen , e. , & salo , h.  2001 , mnras , 324 , 685    lewis , j.  r. , & freeman , k.  c.  1989 , aj , 97 , 139    loebman , s.  r. , rokar , r. , debattista , v.  p. , et al .
2011 , apj , 737 , 8    maltby , d.  t. , hoyos , c. , gray , m.  e. , aragn - salamanca , a. , & wolf , c.  2012 , mnras , 420 , 2475    narayan , c.  a. , & jog , c.  j.  2002 , a&a , 394 , 89    newmark , n.  m.  1959 , proc .
asce , 85 , 67    oh , s .- h . , de blok , w.  j.  g. , fabian , w. , brinks , e. , & kennicutt , jr . , r.  c.  2008 , aj , 136 , 2761    paturel , g. , petit , c. , prugniel , ph . , et al .  2003 ,
a&a , 412 , 45    prez , i.  2004 , a&a , 427 , l17    pohlen , m. , balcells , m. , ltticke , r. , & dettmar , r .- j .  2004a , a&a , 422 , 465    pohlen , m. , beckman , j.  e. , httmeister , s. , et al .
2004b , in penetrating bars through masks of cosmic dust , ed .
d.  l.  block et al .
( cambridge : cambridge univ .  press ) , 713    pohlen , m. , dettmar , r .- j .
, & ltticke , r.  2000 , a&a , 357 , 1    pohlen , m. , & trujillo , i.  2006 , a&a , 454 , 759    pohlen , m. , zaroubi , s. , peletier , r.  f. , & dettmar , r .- j .
2007 , mnras , 378 , 594    prochaska , j.  x. , naumov , s.  o. , carney , b.  w. , mcwilliam , a. , & wolfe , a.  m.  2000 , aj , 120 , 2513    qu , y. , di matteo , p. , lehnert , m.  d. , & van driel , w.  2011 , a&a , 530 , 10    radburn - smith , d.  j. , rokar , r. , debattista , v.  p. , et al .
2012 , apj , accepted for publication    scnrich , r. , & binney , j.  2009 , mnras , 396 , 203    sheth , k. , regan , m. , hinz , j.  l. , et al .
2010 , pasp , 122 , 1397    spitler , l.  r. , forbes , d.  a. , & beasley , m.  a.  2008 , mnras , 389 , 1150    spitzer , l.  1978 , physical processes in the interstellar medium ( new york : john wiley )    stark , a.  a.  1984 , apj , 281 , 624    trujillo , i. , & pohlen , m.  2005 , apj , 630 , l17    tsikoudi , v.  1979 , apj , 234 , 842    van albada , t.  s. , bahcall , j.  n. , begeman , k. , & sancisi , r.  1985 , apj , 295 , 305    van der kruit , p.  c.  1979 , a&as , 38 15    van der kruit , p.  c.  1987 , a&a , 173 , 59    van der kruit , p.  c.  2001 , in asp conf .
230 , galaxy disks and disk galaxies , ed .
j.  g.  funes & e.  m.  corsini ( san francisco : asp ) , 119    van der kruit , p.  c. , & searle , l.  1981a , a&a , 95 , 105    van der kruit , p.  c. , & searle , l.  1981b , a&a , 95 , 116    van der kruit , p.  c. , & searle , l.  1982 , a&a , 110 , 79    yoachim , p. , & dalcanton , j.  j. , 2006 , aj , 131 , 226    zwaan , m.  a. , briggs , f.  h. , sprayberry , d. , & sorar , e.  1997 , apj , 490 , 173    l c c c c c c     + galaxy i d & @xmath11 & distance & @xmath125 & @xmath112 & @xmath60 & pa + & & ( mpc ) & ( mag ) & kms@xmath115 & ( ) & ( ) +     + galaxy i d & @xmath11 & distance & @xmath125 & @xmath112 & @xmath60 & pa + & & ( mpc ) & ( mag ) & kms@xmath115 & ( ) & ( ) +    eso  157 - 049 & 3.0 & 23.9 & 13.55 & 90.48 & 52 & 28.1 + eso  240 - 011 & 4.8 & 42.4 & 11.52 & 267.46 & 16 & 127.2 + eso  292 - 014 & 6.5 & 24.9 & 12.47 & 107.73 & 89 & 83.9 + eso  346 - 001 & 5.1 & 34.9 & 13.29 & 47.68 & 64 & 64.3 + eso  440 - 027 & 6.6 & 21.6 & 11.50 & 117.53 & 10 & 79.7 + eso  443 - 021 & 5.8 & 48.1 & 13.24 & 161.71 & 37 & 159.3 + eso  466 - 014 & 3.8 & 47.7 & 14.23 & 121.00 & 40 & 50.4 + eso  469 - 015 & 3.3 & 27.0 & 13.69 & 93.01 & 56 & 149.6 + eso  533 - 004 & 5.2 & 36.2 & 13.05 & 147.54 & 55 & 150.5 + eso  544 - 027 & 3.4 & 40.3 & 14.20 & 92.00 & 46 & 153.3 + ic  0217 & 5.9 & 24.2 & 13.86 & 100.15 & 60 & 35.7 + ic  0610 & 3.9 & 20.7 & 13.44 & 133.84 & 57 & 29.0 + ic  1197 & 6.0 & 25.7 & 13.14 & 87.90 & 77 & 56.4 + ic  1553 & 5.2 & 39.9 & 13.38 & 67.93 & 40 & 15.0 + ic  1711 & 3.0 & 52.3 & 13.19 & 173.41 & 75 & 43.9 + ic  1913 & 3.4 & 21.4 & 13.38 & 77.88 & 58 & 147.7 + ic  2058 & 6.5 & 19.4 & 12.13 & 82.78 & 102 & 17.4 + ic  2135 & 6.0 & 29.2 & 11.93 & 107.08 & 97 & 108.6 + ic  5176 & 4.5 & 26.4 & 12.02 & 164.38 & 134 & 27.9 + ngc  0489 & 2.7 & 33.5 & 12.42 & 180.91 & 46 & 120.8 + ngc  0522 & 4.1 & 35.0 & 12.28 & 169.10 & 72 & 32.9 + ngc  0678 & 3.0 & 27.1 & 12.15 & 169.03 & 93 & 77.4 + ngc
1032 & 0.4 & 35.6 & 12.13 & 283.94 & 106 & 67.5 + ngc  1163 & 4.1 & 30.9 & 13.40 & 142.07 & 69 & 143.0 + ngc  1422 & 2.3 & 16.9 & 13.22 & 65.87 & 75 & 65.5 + ngc  1495 & 5.0 & 17.3 & 12.19 & 90.73 & 67 & 104.5 + ngc  1596 & -2.0 & 15.6 & 11.94 & 98.32 & 117 & 18.7 + ngc  2732 & -2.0 & 31.8 & 12.73 & 32.30 & 55 & 65.7 + ngc  3098 & -1.5 & 22.4 & 12.68 & 129.73 & 70 & 88.7 + ngc  3279 & 6.5 & 32.5 & 12.37 & 155.85 & 74 & 152.0 + ngc
3454 & 5.5 & 21.3 & 12.44 & 91.25 & 72 & 116.1 + ngc  3501 & 5.9 & 23.3 & 12.09 & 133.61 & 128 & 28.0 + ngc  3592 & 5.3 & 22.7 & 13.44 & 79.72 & 64 & 117.7 + ngc  3600 & 1.0 & 13.6 & 12.78 & 86.90 & 56 & 4.4 + ngc  3628 & 3.1 & 12.2 & 9.150 & 215.16 & 329 & 102.6 + ngc  4081 & 1.0 & 26.1 & 15.12 & 116.53 & 42 & 130.0 + ngc  4111 & -1.4 & 16.0 & 11.60 & 71.63 & 53 & 152.2 + ngc  4330 & 6.3 & 19.5 & 11.99 & 117.85 & 69 & 59.2 + ngc  4359 & 5.0 & 13.3 & 13.43 & 102.83 & 41 & 107.7 + ngc  4437 & 6.0 & 9.8 & 9.620 & 140.13 & 274 & 82.4 + ngc  4565 & 3.2 & 13.3 & 8.970 & 244.94 & 498&135.1 + ngc
4607 & 3.4 & 20.0 & 12.63 & 98.93 & 87 & 2.7 + ngc  4747 & 7.2 & 12.3 & 12.36 & 69.60 & 63 & 31.9 + ngc  5084 & -2.0 & 26.4 & 11.07 & 309.88 & 300 & 81.0 + ngc  5470 & 3.1 & 18.0 & 13.00 & 109.45 & 77 & 62.2 + ngc  5529 & 5.3 & 50.0 & 11.20 & 284.14 & 173&114.3 + ngc  5981 & 4.3 & 29.2 & 12.48 & 251.12 & 83 & 139.8 + ngc  6010 & 0.4 & 21.6 & 12.33 & 148.80 & 55 & 103.3 + ngc  7347 & 4.6 & 38.7 & 13.25 & 115.11 & 46 & 130.8 + pgc  013646 & 5.1 & 32.6 & 12.32 & 168.16 & 102&34.4 + pgc  028308 & 6.8 & 40.5 & 12.87 & 167.27 & 60&125.8 + pgc  030591 & 6.8 & 29.8 & 13.36 & 111.59 & 45&168.4 + pgc  032548 & -0.2 & 37.3 & 15.06 & 93.33 & 27 & 149.7 + pgc  052809 & 5.9 & 24.9 & 12.46 & 100.97 &
95&169.2 + ugc  00903 & 3.9 & 51.6 & 13.09 & 163.23 & 50 & 52.6 + ugc  01970 & 5.9 & 33.9 & 13.32 & 95.20 & 55 & 22.5 + ugc  05347 & 6.5 & 33.8 & 13.53 & 95.64 & 41 & 17.0 + ugc  05689 & 6.4 & 43.4 & 14.07 & 119.67 & 40 & 153.4 + ugc  05958 & 4.0 & 29.4 & 14.26 & 78.15 & 49 & 178.9 + ugc  06526 & 7.0 & 32.3 & 12.64 & 72.57 & 49 & 87.2 + ugc  07086 & 3.1 & 32.8 & 14.02 & 126.01 & 69 & 70.5 + ugc  08737 & 4.0 & 41.9 & 13.27 & 163.31 & 72 & 150.7 + ugc  09448 & 3.2 & 37.8 & 13.95 & 111.50 & 49 & 85.8 + ugc  09665 & 4.0 & 42.5 & 13.57 & 126.05 & 51 & 141.5 + ugc  10043 & 4.1 & 37.3 & 13.80 & 143.59 & 66 & 150.5 + ugc  10288 & 5.3 & 32.4 & 12.09 & 166.59 & 144 & 90.4 + ugc  10297 & 5.1 & 39.2 & 13.43 & 102.82 & 64 & 2.9 + ugc  12518 & 3.0 & 51.6 & 14.11 & 49.58 & 42 & 25.2 + ugc  12692 & 3.9 & 49.6 & 14.21 & 101.34 & 38 & 53.2 + ugc  12857 & 4.0 & 34.5 & 13.24 & 107.94 & 61 & 33.5 +    note .
@xmath11 values from hyperleda .
distance values from the average of redshift - independent measurements in ned when available and if not from virgo infall corrected radial velocities and a hubble - lematre constant @xmath126 .
@xmath125 values are hyperleda s internal absorption - corrected values .
@xmath112 values from hyperleda .
@xmath60 values from hyperleda except for ngc  4111 , for which we used the rc3 value .
pa values from hyperleda , except for eso  440 - 027 , ic  5176 , and ngc  3098 , for which we measured our own pa values using ellipse fitting .
lccccc     + i d & type & @xmath127 & @xmath128 & @xmath129 & @xmath130 + & & ( mag / as@xmath131 ) & ( ) & ( ) & ( ) +     + i d & type & @xmath127 & @xmath128 & @xmath129 & @xmath130 + & & ( mag / as@xmath131 ) & ( ) & ( ) & ( ) + eso  157 - 049&type  ii+iii&@xmath132&@xmath133&@xmath134&@xmath135 + & & & @xmath134&@xmath136&@xmath137 + & & & @xmath136&@xmath138&@xmath139 + eso  240 - 011&type  ii&@xmath140&@xmath141&@xmath142&@xmath143 + & & & @xmath142&@xmath144&@xmath145 + eso  292 - 014&type  ii&@xmath146&@xmath147&@xmath148&@xmath149 + & & & @xmath148&@xmath150&@xmath151 + eso  346 - 001&type  ii+ii&@xmath152&@xmath153&@xmath154&@xmath155 + & & & @xmath154&@xmath156&@xmath157 + & & & @xmath156&@xmath158&@xmath159 + eso  440 - 027&type  ii+iii&@xmath160&@xmath161&@xmath162&@xmath163 + & & & @xmath162&@xmath164&@xmath165 + & & & @xmath164&@xmath166&@xmath167 + eso  443 - 021&type  ii&@xmath168&@xmath141&@xmath169&@xmath170 + & & & @xmath169&@xmath171&@xmath172 + eso  466 - 014&type  ii&@xmath173&@xmath174&@xmath175&@xmath176 + & & & @xmath175&@xmath177&@xmath178 + eso  469 - 015&type  ii+iii&@xmath179&@xmath174&@xmath180&@xmath181 + & & & @xmath180&@xmath182&@xmath183 + & & & @xmath182&@xmath158&@xmath184 + eso  533 - 004&type  ii&@xmath185&@xmath186&@xmath187&@xmath188 + & & & @xmath187&@xmath150&@xmath189 + eso  544 - 027&type  ii&@xmath190&@xmath191&@xmath192&@xmath193 + & & & @xmath192&@xmath194&@xmath195 + ic  0217&type  ii&@xmath196&@xmath153&@xmath197&@xmath198 + & & & @xmath197&@xmath199&@xmath200 + ic  0610&type  ii+ii&@xmath201&@xmath141&@xmath202&@xmath203 + & & & @xmath202&@xmath204&@xmath205 + & & & @xmath204&@xmath206&@xmath207 + ic  1197&type  ii&@xmath208&@xmath209&@xmath210&@xmath211 + & & & @xmath210&@xmath212&@xmath213 + ic  1553&type  ii+iii&@xmath214&@xmath153&@xmath215&@xmath216 + & & & @xmath215&@xmath217&@xmath218 + & & & @xmath217&@xmath194&@xmath219 +   + ic  1711&type  ii&@xmath220&@xmath221&@xmath222&@xmath223 + & & & @xmath222&@xmath150&@xmath224 + ic  1913&type  ii&@xmath225&@xmath226&@xmath227&@xmath228 + & & & @xmath227&@xmath206&@xmath229 + ic  2058&type  ii&@xmath230&@xmath174&@xmath231&@xmath232 + & & & @xmath231&@xmath233&@xmath234 + ic  2135&type  ii&@xmath235&@xmath147&@xmath236&@xmath237 + & & & @xmath236&@xmath238&@xmath239 + ic  5176&type  iii&@xmath240&@xmath241&@xmath242&@xmath243 + & & & @xmath242&@xmath166&@xmath244 + ngc  0489&type  i&@xmath245&@xmath241&@xmath246&@xmath247 + ngc  0522&type  ii+iii&@xmath248&@xmath186&@xmath249&@xmath250 + & & & @xmath249&@xmath251&@xmath252 + & & & @xmath251&@xmath212&@xmath253 + ngc  0678&type  ii&@xmath254&@xmath194&@xmath255&@xmath256 + & & & @xmath255&@xmath257&@xmath258 + ngc 1032&type  ii&@xmath259&@xmath177&@xmath260&@xmath261 + & & & @xmath260&@xmath262&@xmath263 + ngc  1163&type  ii+iii&@xmath264&@xmath265&@xmath266&@xmath266 + & & & @xmath266&@xmath267&@xmath268 + & & & @xmath267&@xmath212&@xmath269 + ngc  1422&type  iii&@xmath270&@xmath133&@xmath271&@xmath272 + & & & @xmath271&@xmath233&@xmath273 + ngc  1495&type  ii&@xmath274&@xmath275&@xmath276&@xmath277 + & & & @xmath276&@xmath278&@xmath279 + ngc 1596&type  iii&@xmath280&@xmath275&@xmath281&@xmath282 + & & & @xmath281&@xmath283&@xmath284 + ngc 2732&type  ii&@xmath285&@xmath286&@xmath287&@xmath288 + & & & @xmath287&@xmath289&@xmath290 + ngc 3098&type  iii&@xmath291&@xmath275&@xmath292&@xmath293 + & & & @xmath292&@xmath199&@xmath294 + ngc  3279&type  ii&@xmath295&@xmath296&@xmath297&@xmath298 + & & & @xmath297&@xmath299&@xmath300 + ngc  3454&type  ii+iii&@xmath301&@xmath241&@xmath302&@xmath303 + & & & @xmath302&@xmath304&@xmath305 + & & & @xmath304&@xmath299&@xmath306 + ngc  3501&type  ii&@xmath307&@xmath275&@xmath308&@xmath309 + & & & @xmath308&@xmath310&@xmath311 + ngc  3592&type  ii&@xmath312&@xmath141&@xmath313&@xmath314 + & & & @xmath313&@xmath315&@xmath316 + ngc  3600&type  iii&@xmath317&@xmath161&@xmath318&@xmath226 + & & & @xmath318&@xmath233&@xmath319 + ngc  3628&type  ii+iii+ii&@xmath320&@xmath158&@xmath321&@xmath322 + & & & @xmath321&@xmath323&@xmath324 + & & & @xmath323&@xmath325&@xmath326 + & & & @xmath325&@xmath327&@xmath328 + ngc  4081&type  ii+iii&@xmath329&@xmath296&@xmath330&@xmath331 + & & & @xmath330&@xmath332&@xmath333 + & & & @xmath332&@xmath334&@xmath335 + ngc 4111&type  ii&@xmath336&@xmath337&@xmath338&@xmath339 + & & & @xmath338&@xmath340&@xmath341 + ngc  4330&type  ii+iii+ii&@xmath342&@xmath343&@xmath344&@xmath345 + & & & @xmath344&@xmath346&@xmath347 + & & & @xmath346&@xmath348&@xmath349 + & & & @xmath348&@xmath166&@xmath350 + ngc  4359&type  iii&@xmath351&@xmath296&@xmath352&@xmath353 + & & & @xmath352&@xmath257&@xmath354 + ngc  4437&type  ii&@xmath355&@xmath356&@xmath357&@xmath358 + & & & @xmath357&@xmath359&@xmath360 + ngc  4565&type  ii+ii&@xmath361&@xmath212&@xmath362&@xmath363 + & & & @xmath362&@xmath364&@xmath365 + & & & @xmath364&@xmath366&@xmath367 + ngc  4607&type  ii+iii&@xmath368&@xmath226&@xmath369&@xmath370 + & & & @xmath369&@xmath371&@xmath372 + & & & @xmath371&@xmath310&@xmath373 + ngc  4747&type  i&@xmath374&@xmath153&@xmath375&@xmath376 + ngc 5084&type  iii&@xmath377&@xmath378&@xmath379&@xmath380 + & & & @xmath379&@xmath381&@xmath382 + ngc  5470&type  ii&@xmath383&@xmath343&@xmath384&@xmath385 + & & & @xmath384&@xmath199&@xmath386 +   +   + ngc  5529&type  ii+iii+ii&@xmath387&@xmath147&@xmath388&@xmath389 + & & & @xmath388&@xmath390&@xmath391 + & & & @xmath390&@xmath392&@xmath393 + & & & @xmath392&@xmath394&@xmath395 + ngc
5981&type  ii&@xmath396&@xmath397&@xmath398&@xmath399 + & & & @xmath398&@xmath400&@xmath401 + ngc 6010&type  ii&@xmath402&@xmath397&@xmath403&@xmath404 + & & & @xmath403&@xmath299&@xmath405 + ngc  7347&type  ii&@xmath406&@xmath147&@xmath407&@xmath408 + & & & @xmath407&@xmath246&@xmath409 + pgc  013646&type  ii&@xmath410&@xmath147&@xmath411&@xmath412 + & & & @xmath411&@xmath238&@xmath413 + pgc  028308&type  ii&@xmath414&@xmath241&@xmath415&@xmath416 + & & & @xmath415&@xmath334&@xmath417 + pgc  030591&type  i&@xmath418&@xmath147&@xmath419&@xmath420 + pgc 032548&type  i&@xmath421&@xmath265&@xmath419&@xmath422 + pgc  052809&type  ii&@xmath423&@xmath141&@xmath424&@xmath425 + & & & @xmath424&@xmath375&@xmath426 + ugc  00903&type  ii+iii&@xmath427&@xmath241&@xmath428&@xmath429 + & & & @xmath428&@xmath430&@xmath431 + & & & @xmath430&@xmath334&@xmath432 + ugc  01970&type  iii+ii&@xmath433&@xmath265&@xmath434&@xmath435 + & & & @xmath434&@xmath436&@xmath437 + & & & @xmath436&@xmath289&@xmath438 + ugc  05347&type  ii&@xmath439&@xmath440&@xmath441&@xmath442 + & & & @xmath441&@xmath177&@xmath443 + ugc  05689&type  ii&@xmath444&@xmath133&@xmath445&@xmath446 + & & & @xmath445&@xmath447&@xmath448 + ugc  05958&type  i&@xmath449&@xmath153&@xmath334&@xmath432 + ugc  06526&type  iii&@xmath450&@xmath440&@xmath451&@xmath452 + & & & @xmath451&@xmath150&@xmath453 + ugc  07086&type  ii+iii&@xmath454&@xmath296&@xmath455&@xmath456 + & & & @xmath455&@xmath457&@xmath458 + & & & @xmath457&@xmath150&@xmath459 +   +   + ugc  08737&type  ii+iii&@xmath460&@xmath343&@xmath461&@xmath462 + & & & @xmath461&@xmath463&@xmath464 + & & & @xmath463&@xmath238&@xmath465 + ugc  09448&type  i&@xmath466&@xmath467&@xmath158&@xmath468 + ugc  09665&type  ii&@xmath469&@xmath241&@xmath470&@xmath471 + & & & @xmath470&@xmath158&@xmath472 + ugc  10043&type  ii&@xmath473&@xmath474&@xmath475&@xmath476 + & & & @xmath475&@xmath477&@xmath478 + ugc  10288&type  ii+iii&@xmath479&@xmath147&@xmath480&@xmath481 + & & & @xmath480&@xmath482&@xmath483 + & & & @xmath482&@xmath484&@xmath485 + ugc  10297&type  ii+iii&@xmath486&@xmath296&@xmath487&@xmath488 + & & & @xmath487&@xmath489&@xmath490 + & & & @xmath489&@xmath334&@xmath491 + ugc  12518&type  ii+iii&@xmath492&@xmath153&@xmath493&@xmath494 + & & & @xmath493&@xmath495&@xmath172 + & & & @xmath495&@xmath138&@xmath496 + ugc  12692&type  iii&@xmath497&@xmath153&@xmath498&@xmath499 + & & & @xmath498&@xmath419&@xmath500 + ugc  12857&type  i&@xmath501&@xmath209&@xmath171&@xmath502 +    note .
@xmath128 and @xmath129 stand for the inner and the outer limit of each fitted section and @xmath130 corresponds to the scale length of that section . the lower limit of the innermost section and the upper limit of the outermost section have no error bar because they have been set manually .
lccccc     + i d & type & @xmath127 & @xmath128 & @xmath129 & @xmath130 + & & ( mag / as@xmath131 ) & ( ) & ( ) & ( ) +     + i d & type & @xmath127 & @xmath128 & @xmath129 & @xmath130 + & & ( mag / as@xmath131 ) & ( ) & ( ) & ( ) + eso  157 - 049&type  ii+iii&@xmath503&@xmath133&@xmath504&@xmath505 + & & & @xmath504&@xmath506&@xmath507 + & & & @xmath506&@xmath206&@xmath508 + eso  240 - 011&type  ii&@xmath509&@xmath141&@xmath510&@xmath511 + & & & @xmath510&@xmath144&@xmath512 +   + eso  292 - 014&type  ii&@xmath513&@xmath147&@xmath514&@xmath515 + & & & @xmath514&@xmath150&@xmath516 + eso  346 - 001&type  ii+ii&@xmath517&@xmath153&@xmath518&@xmath519 + & & & @xmath518&@xmath520&@xmath521 + & & & @xmath520&@xmath158&@xmath522 + eso  440 - 027&type  ii+iii&@xmath523&@xmath161&@xmath524&@xmath525 + & & & @xmath524&@xmath526&@xmath527 + & & & @xmath526&@xmath166&@xmath528 + eso  443 - 021&type  ii&@xmath529&@xmath141&@xmath530&@xmath531 + & & & @xmath530&@xmath171&@xmath532 + eso  466 - 014&type  ii&@xmath533&@xmath174&@xmath534&@xmath535 + & & & @xmath534&@xmath177&@xmath536 + eso  469 - 015&type  ii+iii&@xmath537&@xmath174&@xmath416&@xmath538 + & & & @xmath416&@xmath539&@xmath540 + & & & @xmath539&@xmath158&@xmath541 + eso  533 - 004&type  ii&@xmath542&@xmath186&@xmath543&@xmath544 + & & & @xmath543&@xmath150&@xmath545 + eso  544 - 027&type  ii&@xmath546&@xmath191&@xmath547&@xmath548 + & & & @xmath547&@xmath194&@xmath549 + ic  0217&type  ii&@xmath550&@xmath153&@xmath551&@xmath552 + & & & @xmath551&@xmath199&@xmath553 + ic  0610&type  ii+ii&@xmath554&@xmath141&@xmath555&@xmath556 + & & & @xmath555&@xmath557&@xmath558 + & & & @xmath557&@xmath206&@xmath559 + ic  1197&type  ii&@xmath560&@xmath209&@xmath561&@xmath562 + & & & @xmath561&@xmath212&@xmath563 + ic  1553&type  ii+iii&@xmath564&@xmath153&@xmath565&@xmath566 + & & & @xmath565&@xmath567&@xmath568 + & & & @xmath567&@xmath177&@xmath569 + ic  1711&type  ii&@xmath570&@xmath221&@xmath571&@xmath572 + & & & @xmath571&@xmath199&@xmath573 + ic  1913&type  ii&@xmath574&@xmath226&@xmath575&@xmath576 + & & & @xmath575&@xmath206&@xmath577 + ic  2058&type  ii&@xmath578&@xmath174&@xmath579&@xmath580 + & & & @xmath579&@xmath233&@xmath581 +   + ic  2135&type  ii&@xmath582&@xmath147&@xmath583&@xmath584 + & & & @xmath583&@xmath238&@xmath585 + ic  5176&type  iii&@xmath586&@xmath241&@xmath587&@xmath588 + & & & @xmath587&@xmath166&@xmath589 + ngc  0489&type  i&@xmath590&@xmath241&@xmath246&@xmath591 + ngc  0522&type  ii+iii&@xmath592&@xmath186&@xmath593&@xmath594 + & & & @xmath593&@xmath595&@xmath443 + & & & @xmath595&@xmath596&@xmath597 + ngc  0678&type  ii&@xmath598&@xmath194&@xmath599&@xmath600 + & & & @xmath599&@xmath601&@xmath602 + ngc 1032&type  ii&@xmath603&@xmath177&@xmath604&@xmath605 + & & & @xmath604&@xmath484&@xmath606 + ngc  1163&type  ii+iii&@xmath607&@xmath265&@xmath608&@xmath609 + & & & @xmath608&@xmath610&@xmath611 + & & & @xmath610&@xmath596&@xmath612 + ngc  1422&type  iii&@xmath613&@xmath133&@xmath614&@xmath615 + & & & @xmath614&@xmath375&@xmath616 + ngc  1495&type  ii&@xmath617&@xmath275&@xmath618&@xmath619 + & & & @xmath618&@xmath278&@xmath620 + ngc 1596&type  iii&@xmath621&@xmath275&@xmath622&@xmath623 + & & & @xmath622&@xmath283&@xmath624 + ngc 2732&type  ii&@xmath625&@xmath286&@xmath626&@xmath627 + & & & @xmath626&@xmath628&@xmath629 + ngc 3098&type  i&@xmath630&@xmath275&@xmath199&@xmath416 + ngc  3279&type  ii&@xmath631&@xmath296&@xmath632&@xmath633 + & & & @xmath632&@xmath299&@xmath634 + ngc  3454&type  ii+iii&@xmath635&@xmath241&@xmath636&@xmath637 + & & & @xmath636&@xmath638&@xmath639 + & & & @xmath638&@xmath212&@xmath640 + ngc  3501&type  ii&@xmath641&@xmath275&@xmath642&@xmath643 + & & & @xmath642&@xmath340&@xmath644 + ngc  3592&type  ii&@xmath645&@xmath141&@xmath646&@xmath647 + & & & @xmath646&@xmath289&@xmath648 + ngc  3600&type  i&@xmath649&@xmath161&@xmath233&@xmath650 +   +   + ngc  3628&type  ii+iii+ii&@xmath651&@xmath158&@xmath652&@xmath653 + & & & @xmath652&@xmath654&@xmath655 + & & & @xmath654&@xmath656&@xmath657 + & & & @xmath656&@xmath327&@xmath658 + ngc  4081&type  ii+iii&@xmath659&@xmath296&@xmath660&@xmath661 + & & & @xmath660&@xmath662&@xmath663 + & & & @xmath662&@xmath334&@xmath664 + ngc 4111&type  ii&@xmath665&@xmath337&@xmath666&@xmath667 + & & & @xmath666&@xmath668&@xmath669 + ngc  4330&type  ii+iii+ii&@xmath670&@xmath343&@xmath671&@xmath672 + & & & @xmath671&@xmath673&@xmath674 + & & & @xmath673&@xmath675&@xmath393 + & & & @xmath675&@xmath166&@xmath676 + ngc  4359&type  iii&@xmath677&@xmath296&@xmath678&@xmath679 + & & & @xmath678&@xmath257&@xmath680 + ngc  4437&type  ii&@xmath681&@xmath356&@xmath682&@xmath683 + & & & @xmath682&@xmath684&@xmath685 + ngc  4565&type  ii+ii&@xmath686&@xmath212&@xmath687&@xmath688 + & & & @xmath687&@xmath689&@xmath690 + & & & @xmath689&@xmath691&@xmath692 + ngc  4607&type  ii+iii&@xmath693&@xmath226&@xmath694&@xmath695 + & & & @xmath694&@xmath696&@xmath697 + & & & @xmath696&@xmath310&@xmath353 + ngc  4747&type  i&@xmath698&@xmath153&@xmath375&@xmath699 + ngc 5084&type  iii&@xmath700&@xmath378&@xmath701&@xmath702 + & & & @xmath701&@xmath703&@xmath704 + ngc  5470&type  ii&@xmath705&@xmath343&@xmath706&@xmath707 + & & & @xmath706&@xmath212&@xmath708 + ngc  5529&type  ii+iii+ii&@xmath709&@xmath147&@xmath710&@xmath711 + & & & @xmath710&@xmath712&@xmath713 + & & & @xmath712&@xmath714&@xmath715 + & & & @xmath714&@xmath394&@xmath716 + ngc  5981&type  ii&@xmath717&@xmath397&@xmath718&@xmath719 + & & & @xmath718&@xmath400&@xmath720 + ngc 6010&type  ii&@xmath721&@xmath397&@xmath722&@xmath723 + & & & @xmath722&@xmath150&@xmath724 + ngc  7347&type  ii&@xmath725&@xmath147&@xmath726&@xmath727 + & & & @xmath726&@xmath158&@xmath241 + pgc  013646&type  ii&@xmath728&@xmath147&@xmath729&@xmath730 + & & & @xmath729&@xmath238&@xmath731 + pgc  028308&type  ii&@xmath732&@xmath241&@xmath733&@xmath734 + & & & @xmath733&@xmath334&@xmath735 + pgc  030591&type  i&@xmath736&@xmath737&@xmath738&@xmath532 + pgc 032548&type  i&@xmath739&@xmath265&@xmath158&@xmath740 + pgc  052809&type  ii&@xmath741&@xmath141&@xmath742&@xmath743 + & & & @xmath742&@xmath375&@xmath744 + ugc  00903&type  ii+iii&@xmath745&@xmath241&@xmath746&@xmath747 + & & & @xmath746&@xmath748&@xmath749 + & & & @xmath748&@xmath334&@xmath750 + ugc  01970&type  iii+ii&@xmath751&@xmath265&@xmath752&@xmath753 + & & & @xmath752&@xmath754&@xmath755 + & & & @xmath754&@xmath289&@xmath756 + ugc  05347&type  ii&@xmath757&@xmath440&@xmath758&@xmath759 + & & & @xmath758&@xmath194&@xmath760 + ugc  05689&type  ii&@xmath761&@xmath133&@xmath762&@xmath763 + & & & @xmath762&@xmath447&@xmath764 + ugc  05958&type  i&@xmath765&@xmath153&@xmath158&@xmath766 + ugc  06526&type  iii&@xmath767&@xmath440&@xmath768&@xmath769 + & & & @xmath768&@xmath150&@xmath770 + ugc  07086&type  ii+iii&@xmath771&@xmath296&@xmath772&@xmath773 + & & & @xmath772&@xmath774&@xmath775 + & & & @xmath774&@xmath150&@xmath776 + ugc  08737&type  ii+iii&@xmath777&@xmath343&@xmath778&@xmath779 + & & & @xmath778&@xmath780&@xmath781 + & & & @xmath780&@xmath233&@xmath782 + ugc  09448&type  i&@xmath783&@xmath467&@xmath177&@xmath784 + ugc  09665&type  ii&@xmath785&@xmath241&@xmath786&@xmath787 + & & & @xmath786&@xmath334&@xmath788 + ugc  10043&type  ii&@xmath789&@xmath474&@xmath790&@xmath791 + & & & @xmath790&@xmath477&@xmath792 +   +   + ugc  10288&type  ii+iii&@xmath793&@xmath147&@xmath794&@xmath795 + & & & @xmath794&@xmath796&@xmath797 + & & & @xmath796&@xmath144&@xmath798 + ugc  10297&type  ii+iii&@xmath799&@xmath296&@xmath800&@xmath801 + & & & @xmath800&@xmath802&@xmath803 + & & & @xmath802&@xmath334&@xmath804 + ugc  12518&type  ii+iii&@xmath805&@xmath153&@xmath806&@xmath807 + & & & @xmath806&@xmath808&@xmath809 + & & & @xmath808&@xmath138&@xmath810 + ugc  12692&type  iii&@xmath811&@xmath153&@xmath812&@xmath813 + & & & @xmath812&@xmath419&@xmath814 + ugc  12857&type  i&@xmath815&@xmath209&@xmath206&@xmath816 +    note .
@xmath128 and @xmath129 stand for the inner and the outer limit of each fitted section and @xmath130 corresponds to the scale length of that section
. the lower limit of the innermost section and the upper limit of the outermost section have no error bar because they have been set manually .
lccccc     + i d & type & @xmath127 & @xmath128 & @xmath129 & @xmath130 + & & ( mag / as@xmath131 ) & ( ) & ( ) & ( ) +     + i d & type & @xmath127 & @xmath128 & @xmath129 & @xmath130 + & & ( mag / as@xmath131 ) & ( ) & ( ) & ( ) + eso  157 - 049&type  ii&@xmath817&@xmath174&@xmath818&@xmath819 + & & & @xmath818&@xmath138&@xmath820 + eso  240 - 011&type  i&@xmath821&@xmath296&@xmath822&@xmath823 + eso  292 - 014&type  ii&@xmath824&@xmath440&@xmath825&@xmath826 + & & & @xmath825&@xmath628&@xmath827 + eso  346 - 001&type  ii&@xmath828&@xmath265&@xmath829&@xmath830 + & & & @xmath829&@xmath246&@xmath831 + eso  440 - 027&type  i&@xmath832&@xmath209&@xmath166&@xmath833 + eso  443 - 021&type  i&@xmath834&@xmath141&@xmath334&@xmath835 + eso  466 - 014&type  i&@xmath836&@xmath153&@xmath726&@xmath837 + eso  469 - 015&type  i&@xmath838&@xmath241&@xmath419&@xmath839 + eso  533 - 004&type  ii&@xmath840&@xmath153&@xmath841&@xmath842 + & & & @xmath841&@xmath628&@xmath843 +   + eso  544 - 027&type  ii&@xmath844&@xmath191&@xmath845&@xmath846 + & & & @xmath845&@xmath847&@xmath848 + ic  0217&type  ii&@xmath849&@xmath241&@xmath850&@xmath851 + & & & @xmath850&@xmath199&@xmath852 + ic  0610&type  i&@xmath853&@xmath241&@xmath206&@xmath854 + ic  1197&type  ii&@xmath855&@xmath226&@xmath856&@xmath857 + & & & @xmath856&@xmath299&@xmath858 + ic  1553&type  i&@xmath859&@xmath737&@xmath194&@xmath860 + ic  1711&type  i&@xmath861&@xmath862&@xmath150&@xmath863 + ic  1913&type  i&@xmath864&@xmath296&@xmath206&@xmath865 + ic  2058&type  ii&@xmath866&@xmath209&@xmath867&@xmath868 + & & & @xmath867&@xmath278&@xmath869 + ic  2135&type  ii&@xmath870&@xmath871&@xmath872&@xmath873 + & & & @xmath872&@xmath238&@xmath874 + ic  5176&type  iii&@xmath875&@xmath161&@xmath876&@xmath877 + & & & @xmath876&@xmath601&@xmath878 + ngc  0489&type  i&@xmath879&@xmath296&@xmath194&@xmath880 + ngc  0522&type  ii&@xmath881&@xmath186&@xmath882&@xmath883 + & & & @xmath882&@xmath212&@xmath884 + ngc  0678&type  ii&@xmath885&@xmath356&@xmath886&@xmath887 + & & & @xmath886&@xmath340&@xmath888 + ngc 1032&type  i&@xmath889&@xmath296&@xmath166&@xmath890 + ngc  1163&type  i&@xmath891&@xmath209&@xmath150&@xmath892 + ngc  1422&type  i&@xmath893&@xmath133&@xmath894&@xmath895 + ngc  1495&type  i&@xmath896&@xmath209&@xmath212&@xmath897 + ngc 1596&type  i&@xmath898&@xmath296&@xmath283&@xmath899 + ngc 2732&type  ii&@xmath900&@xmath296&@xmath901&@xmath902 + & & & @xmath901&@xmath289&@xmath903 + ngc 3098&type  i&@xmath904&@xmath241&@xmath150&@xmath905 + ngc  3279&type  ii&@xmath906&@xmath241&@xmath907&@xmath908 + & & & @xmath907&@xmath628&@xmath909 + ngc  3454&type  ii&@xmath910&@xmath296&@xmath911&@xmath393 + & & & @xmath911&@xmath199&@xmath912 + ngc  3501&type  i&@xmath913&@xmath474&@xmath375&@xmath914 +   +   + ngc  3592&type  ii&@xmath915&@xmath141&@xmath916&@xmath917 + & & & @xmath916&@xmath138&@xmath918 + ngc  3600&type  iii&@xmath919&@xmath241&@xmath920&@xmath921 + & & & @xmath920&@xmath233&@xmath922 + ngc  3628&type  ii&@xmath923&@xmath206&@xmath924&@xmath925 + & & & @xmath924&@xmath327&@xmath926 + ngc  4081&type  i&@xmath927&@xmath209&@xmath334&@xmath928 + ngc 4111&type  i&@xmath929&@xmath147&@xmath340&@xmath930 + ngc  4330&type  ii&@xmath931&@xmath296&@xmath932&@xmath933 + & & & @xmath932&@xmath668&@xmath934 + ngc  4359&type  i&@xmath935&@xmath147&@xmath310&@xmath936 + ngc  4437&type  ii&@xmath937&@xmath356&@xmath938&@xmath939 + & & & @xmath938&@xmath940&@xmath941 + ngc  4565&type  i&@xmath942&@xmath289&@xmath943&@xmath944 + ngc  4607&type  i&@xmath945&@xmath174&@xmath310&@xmath946 + ngc  4747&type  i&@xmath947&@xmath153&@xmath375&@xmath948 + ngc 5084&type  iii&@xmath949&@xmath378&@xmath950&@xmath951 + & & & @xmath950&@xmath381&@xmath952 + ngc  5470&type  ii&@xmath953&@xmath133&@xmath954&@xmath955 + & & & @xmath954&@xmath150&@xmath956 + ngc  5529&type  iii+ii&@xmath957&@xmath275&@xmath958&@xmath959 + & & & @xmath958&@xmath960&@xmath393 + & & & @xmath960&@xmath394&@xmath961 + ngc  5981&type  i&@xmath962&@xmath440&@xmath400&@xmath963 + ngc 6010&type  i&@xmath964&@xmath296&@xmath199&@xmath965 + ngc  7347&type  i&@xmath966&@xmath440&@xmath419&@xmath967 + pgc  013646&type  i&@xmath968&@xmath153&@xmath278&@xmath969 + pgc  028308&type  i&@xmath970&@xmath147&@xmath246&@xmath971 + pgc  030591&type  i&@xmath972&@xmath209&@xmath847&@xmath973 + pgc 032548&type  i&@xmath974&@xmath296&@xmath447&@xmath975 + pgc  052809&type  ii&@xmath976&@xmath191&@xmath977&@xmath978 + & & & @xmath977&@xmath238&@xmath979 + ugc  00903&type  i&@xmath980&@xmath174&@xmath158&@xmath981 + ugc  01970&type  i&@xmath982&@xmath147&@xmath315&@xmath983 + ugc  05347&type  i&@xmath984&@xmath209&@xmath985&@xmath986 +   + ugc  05689&type  ii&@xmath987&@xmath191&@xmath988&@xmath989 + & & & @xmath988&@xmath447&@xmath990 + ugc  05958&type  i&@xmath991&@xmath153&@xmath334&@xmath992 + ugc  06526&type  i&@xmath993&@xmath296&@xmath150&@xmath994 + ugc  07086&type  i&@xmath995&@xmath241&@xmath150&@xmath996 + ugc  08737&type  i&@xmath997&@xmath343&@xmath238&@xmath998 + ugc  09448&type  i&@xmath999&@xmath467&@xmath378&@xmath1000 + ugc  09665&type  i&@xmath1001&@xmath133&@xmath158&@xmath1002 + ugc  10043&type  i&@xmath1003&@xmath862&@xmath289&@xmath1004 + ugc  10288&type  i&@xmath1005&@xmath474&@xmath1006&@xmath1007 + ugc  10297&type  i&@xmath1008&@xmath440&@xmath356&@xmath1009 + ugc  12518&type  i&@xmath1010&@xmath191&@xmath138&@xmath1011 + ugc  12692&type  i&@xmath1012&@xmath265&@xmath194&@xmath1013 + ugc  12857&type  i&@xmath1014&@xmath209&@xmath194&@xmath1015 +    note .
@xmath128 and @xmath129 stand for the inner and the outer limit of each fitted section and @xmath130 corresponds to the scale length of that section
. the lower limit of the innermost section and the upper limit of the outermost section have no error bar because they have been set manually .
the following pages include the vertical and horizontal luminosity profile fits for all the galaxies in our final sample .
they also include the image of each galaxy .
the information is organized as follows :    * the three images in the top row show the average of the 3.6 and 4.5@xmath13-band background - subtracted s@xmath4 g frames ( left ) , the same image after masking ( center ) , and the used mask ( right ) .
the vertical red lines indicate the limits of the fitted vertical bins , the central one being ignored due to the possible presence of a bulge . *
the next two rows show the fits to the luminosity profiles in these bins .
the data points have @xmath1016 statistical error bars , the dashed curve represents the best fit , the dotted curves indicate the contributions of the thin and the thin discs .
the dash - dotted vertical lines indicate the limits of the range in vertical distance above the mid - plane used for the fit .
the vertical solid line indicates @xmath14 for each bin .
the profiles in bins which have not been selected for the data processing in this paper ( section  [ secdefrs ] ) are indicated with a `` not used '' label . *
the bottom panel shows the horizontal luminosity profiles integrated from @xmath68 to @xmath1017 ( total ; yellow ) , from @xmath68 to @xmath1018 ( thin disc ; blue ) , and from @xmath1019 to @xmath1017 ( thick disc ; red ) .
the black lines indicate fits to those profiles , with vertical intersecting lines indicating the fitting range and the truncation radii .
the vertical solid gray lines represent @xmath1020 , @xmath1021 , and @xmath1022 .
the vertical dashed line represents @xmath60 .
the gray area represents the inferred average surface brightness of the thick disc in the range @xmath68 to @xmath1018 in the presence of a thin disc with a relative face - on surface brightness similar to which is found where the vertical luminosity profiles have been successfully fitted ( upper limit ) and in the absence of it ( lower limit ) extrapolated from the vertical luminosity profile fits .
the bins for which valid vertical luminosity fits have been obtained can be seen in the bottom left of each panel .
the errors in the fitted parameters are @xmath1016 fitting errors .