Aims. DustPedia and Local Volume Legacy (LVL) are two samples representative of the local galaxy population, including in total ∼1000 unique objects of all morphological types, with a wide range of stellar masses and star formation activity, and a spectral coverage from the ultraviolet to the far-infrared. The purpose of this work is to show that these samples cover two complementary ranges in stellar mass and galaxy morphology, making them an ideal set for constraining the dominant processes in the evolution of the galactic dust content. Methods. Using the multi-wavelength data provided by the two surveys, we fitted the galaxies’ spectral energy distribution and estimated their physical properties, in particular the stellar mass, M * , the specific dust mass, sM dust = M dust / M * , and the specific star formation rate, sSFR = SFR/ M * . Results. By combining DustPedia and LVL, we highlight that the trend of log 10 ( sM dust ) with log 10 ( M * ) is not monotonic. Thanks to a large number of objects across a wide range of M * , we have been able to fit two smoothly joined linear correlations: a positive one for log 10 ( M * /M ⊙ )≲9.5 (a range populated mostly by LVL late spirals and irregulars), and a negative one for larger-mass, mainly DustPedia, spirals (with early-type galaxies being distinct and more dispersed in the same mass regime). For log 10 ( M * /M ⊙ ) > 9.5, we confirm a strong correlation between sM dust and sSFR; dwarf galaxies, instead, lie below this trend, showing a large scatter of sM dust for −10.5 < log 10 (sSFR/yr −1 ) < − 9.0. By using chemical evolution models we find that the observed log 10 ( sM dust )–log 10 ( M * ) and log 10 ( sM dust )–log 10 (sSFR) trends can be interpreted mainly by variations in the initial gas mass budget and the galaxy ages, respectively. Low-mass Sm-Irr galaxies with low sM dust and a high sSFR can only be reproduced by the models by assuming a highly efficient photofragmentation rate of large grains, and/or low grain growth in clouds.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Paspaliaris et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: