ner_tags: O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Model I-Model I-Model I-Model O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Dataset I-Dataset I-Dataset I-Dataset I-Dataset O B-Dataset I-Dataset O O B-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula O B-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula B-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula O B-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O B-Wavelength O O O O O B-Survey B-Wavelength O B-Dataset I-Dataset I-Dataset I-Dataset B-Dataset O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O B-Dataset B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O B-Wavelength O O B-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula O O O O O O O B-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula B-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula O B-Formula I-Formula I-Formula O O O O O O O O O O O B-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula O O O O O O O O B-Dataset O B-Dataset O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Dataset O B-Dataset O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-CelestialObject O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O B-Wavelength O O O O O O O O B-Dataset O O O O O B-Wavelength O O O O O O O O O O O B-CelestialObject O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O
tokens: that by defining a cluster subsample using clusters appearing both dynamically relaxed and hosting a CC, the luminosity–temperature ( LT ) relation appears self-similar, compared to unrelaxed and NCC clusters. While this method may be the preferred choice for defining subsamples of clusters for mass derivations, this limits the cluster sample size used for mass calculations; thus, the derived scaling relation may not be representative of the whole cluster population. This paper aims to measure the masses for a complete sample of 34 clusters to measure the X-ray LM scaling relation, utilizing hydrostatic mass estimates and fully accounting for selection effects. The outline of the paper is as follows. In Section 2 , we discuss the sample selection and data analysis. Section 3 details the cluster analysis and determines the dynamical state of individual clusters. Notes on individual clusters are given in Section 4 . Our results are presented in Section 5 . The discussion and conclusions are presented in Sections 6 and 7 , respectively. Throughout this paper, we assume a Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe 9 ( WMAP 9) cosmology of H 0 = 69.7 km s −1 Mpc −1 , Ω M = 0.282, Ω Λ = 0.718 and σ 8 = 0.817 (Hinshaw et al. 2013 ). 2 SAMPLE AND DATA PREPARATION The sample of clusters used in our analysis was defined by the conditions given in Dahle ( 2006 ). The sample of clusters represents a complete sample of X-ray luminous clusters taken from the RASS-based, X-ray flux-limited ROSAT Brightest Cluster Sample (BCS) of Ebeling et al. ( 1998 ) and its low-flux extension (eBCS; Ebeling et al. 2000 ). Dahle ( 2006 ) imposed a lower cutoff in X-ray luminosity of L = 6 × 10 44 erg s −1 (the limit based upon a cosmology assuming Ω M = 0.3, Ω Λ = 0.7 and h = 0.7), corresponding to a sample of 36 clusters within the redshift range 0.15 ≤ z ≤ 0.30. Fig. 1 plots the luminosity–redshift distribution of the BCS and eBCS, with the yellow shaded region highlighting the region enclosed by the luminosity and redshift cuts defining our sample selection. Note that two of the clusters were dropped from the cluster sample, as detailed below, leading to a final sample of 34 clusters. Figure 1. Plot of the luminosity–redshift distribution of the BCS and eBCS clusters. The yellow shaded region highlights the region enclosed by the luminosity and redshift cuts imposed to define our cluster sample (see Section 2 ). The cluster A689 satisfies these selection criteria, but was noted in the original detection as having a large portion of its flux coming from embedded point sources, and was therefore excluded from the cluster sample. The source of the embedded point source was found to be a central BL-Lac object (Giles et al. 2012 ), with the re-analysis determining a cluster X-ray luminosity ∼10 times lower than quoted in the BCS, well below the sample cutoff X-ray luminosity. Furthermore, we found that the redshift given for the cluster Zw5768 in Ebeling et al. ( 1998 ) was