pith. sign in

arxiv: 2505.22173 · v1 · pith:XV4WGLNZnew · submitted 2025-05-28 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR · astro-ph.GA

Charting circumstellar chemistry of carbon-rich asymptotic giant branch stars. II. Abundances and spatial distributions of CS

R. Unnikrishnan , M. Andriantsaralaza , E. De Beck , L. -{\AA}. Nyman , H. Olofsson , W. H. T. Vlemmings , M. Maercker , M. Van de Sande
show 4 more authors
T. Danilovich T. J. Millar S. B. Charnley M. G. Rawlings
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-22 01:24 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA
keywords AGB starscircumstellar envelopescarbon-rich starsCS abundancesradiative transferALMA observationsphotodissociation
0
0 comments X

The pith

Five carbon-rich AGB stars show CS abundance profiles similar to IRC+10216 except for density-driven variations.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper derives stellar and outflow properties for five carbon-rich AGB stars by fitting their spectral energy distributions and CO line emissions. It then performs radiative transfer calculations to extract CS abundance profiles, using spatial and excitation constraints from ALMA interferometry and single-dish spectra. The derived profiles reach peak fractional abundances of 1 to 4 times 10 to the minus 6 and have e-folding radii of 1.8 to 6.8 times 10 to the 16 cm, with no significant differences from the archetype IRC+10216 beyond those expected from varying envelope densities. This matters to a sympathetic reader because current chemical understanding rests heavily on one well-observed source; confirming similarity extends the applicability of those models. The work also yields refined isotope ratios and tighter constraints on one source's radial extent.

Core claim

After modeling five carbon-rich AGB stars, the derived CS fractional abundance profiles show peaks between 1 times 10 to the -6 and 4 times 10 to the -6 with e-folding radii from 1.8 times 10 to the 16 cm to 6.8 times 10 to the 16 cm. These profiles exhibit no significant differences from those of IRC+10216 apart from variations driven by envelope density. The modeling also produces reliable 12C/13C and 32S/34S ratios and improves the uncertainty on the CS e-folding radius for IRAS 07454-7112 by a factor of about 2.5.

What carries the argument

Radiative transfer modeling of CS lines across multiple transitions and apertures, with stellar and outflow parameters fixed from prior SED and CO fits and further constrained by ALMA spatial data.

If this is right

  • Chemical models are corroborated because they reproduce the observed CS radial extents through the photodissociation framework.
  • Previous single-dish estimates of CS abundances are refined with the added spatial constraints.
  • The relative uncertainty on the CS e-folding radius for IRAS 07454-7112 improves by a factor of roughly 2.5.
  • Isotopologue line modeling supplies reliable 12C/13C and 32S/34S ratios for the sample stars.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If CS similarity holds, molecular abundance patterns established for IRC+10216 may generalize to other carbon-rich AGB envelopes.
  • Density variations appear to dominate the chemical differences, pointing to mass-loss rate as the primary control on envelope chemistry.
  • Targeted mapping of additional species at comparable resolution could reveal whether subtle chemical distinctions exist beyond what CS alone shows.

Load-bearing premise

The stellar and outflow parameters derived from SED and CO modeling are sufficiently accurate to serve as fixed inputs for the subsequent CS radiative transfer calculations without introducing large systematic errors.

What would settle it

New high-resolution observations of CS emission from an additional carbon-rich AGB star with mass-loss rate comparable to the sample but yielding a peak abundance or radial extent lying well outside the reported ranges would settle the uniformity claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.22173 by E. De Beck, H. Olofsson, L. -{\AA}. Nyman, M. Andriantsaralaza, M. G. Rawlings, M. Maercker, M. Van de Sande, R. Unnikrishnan, S. B. Charnley, T. Danilovich, T. J. Millar, W. H. T. Vlemmings.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Observed (black) and modelled (red) CS line profiles for IRAS 15194 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Comparison of modelled (red) and observed (black) integrated intensities of CS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: χ 2 values for our grid of CS models for IRC +10 216. The contours denote 1σ, 2σ, and 3σ ranges, when constrained using only the spatial information from the CS J = 2−1 line (green) vs just the excitation information from the different J lines (blue). Also shown are the contours when using both the spatial and excitation information simultaneously (red) to constrain the RT models. The green, blue, and red … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Isotopic ratios from this work compared to estimates from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Variation in e-folding radius of the CS abundance profiles [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Ratio of the excitation temperature (Tex) and the kinetic temperature (Tkin) for various low- and high-J CS transitions (top), and the corresponding line emitting regions (bottom), nor￾malised to the peak of the J = 21 − 20 emitting region, as func￾tions of radius across the CSE, from the best-fit model for IRAS 15194−5115. See text for a more detailed description. strained abundance profiles, which may be… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of CS abundance profiles obtained from RT modelling (blue) and chemical modelling: red - using CS photodis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The circumstellar envelopes (CSEs) of asymptotic giant branch (AGB) stars harbour a rich variety of molecules and are sites of complex chemistry. Our current understanding of the circumstellar chemical processes of carbon-rich AGB stars is predominantly based on observations of a single star, IRC+10216, often regarded as an archetypical carbon star. We aim to estimate stellar and circumstellar properties for five carbon stars, and constrain their circumstellar CS abundances. This study compares the CS abundances among the sources, informs circumstellar chemical models, and helps to assess if IRC+10216 is a good representative of the physics and chemistry of carbon star CSEs. We modelled the spectral energy distributions (SEDs) and CO line emission to derive the stellar and outflow properties. Using these, we then retrieved CS abundance profiles with detailed radiative transfer modelling, imposing spatial and excitation constraints from ALMA and single-dish observations. We obtain good fits to the SEDs and CO lines for all sources and reproduce the CS line emission across various transitions and apertures, yielding robust estimates of the CS abundance profiles. Peak CS fractional abundances range from 1$\times$10$^{-6}$ - 4$\times$10$^{-6}$, with e-folding radii of 1.8$\times$10$^{16}$ - 6.8$\times$10$^{16}$ cm. We also derive reliable $^{12}$C/$^{13}$C and $^{32}$S/$^{34}$S ratios from CS isotopologue modelling. Our results refine previous single-dish CS abundance estimates and improve the relative uncertainty on the CS e-folding radius for IRAS 07454$-$7112 by a factor of $\sim$2.5. Chemical models reproduce our estimates of the CS radial extent, corroborating the CS photodissociation framework used therein. We find no significant differences between the derived CS abundance profiles for IRC+10216 and the rest of the sample, apart from the expected density-driven variations.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript models the spectral energy distributions (SEDs) and CO line emission for five carbon-rich AGB stars to derive stellar and outflow parameters. These are then used as fixed inputs for detailed radiative transfer modeling of multiple CS transitions, incorporating spatial constraints from ALMA observations and single-dish data. The authors retrieve CS abundance profiles with peak fractional abundances of 1–4 × 10^{-6} and e-folding radii of 1.8–6.8 × 10^{16} cm, derive isotopic ratios, and compare the results to chemical models. They conclude that the CS profiles show no significant differences from those of IRC+10216 beyond density-driven variations.

Significance. If the results hold, this work meaningfully extends circumstellar chemistry studies beyond the single archetype IRC+10216 by providing multi-source constraints on CS abundances and radial distributions. The good fits to SEDs, CO lines, and CS transitions with ALMA spatial information, plus agreement with chemical models on the radial extent, strengthen the photodissociation framework. Refinement of the e-folding radius uncertainty for IRAS 07454−7112 by a factor of ~2.5 and the isotopic ratio derivations are clear strengths.

major comments (1)
  1. §4 (CS radiative transfer modeling): The stellar and outflow parameters (mass-loss rate, expansion velocity, temperature structure) derived from SED and CO modeling are adopted as fixed inputs for the CS abundance retrieval. The manuscript does not quantify how uncertainties in these parameters propagate into the retrieved peak CS abundances or e-folding radii. This is load-bearing for the central claim in §5 that there are no significant differences from IRC+10216 apart from density-driven variations, as source-dependent systematics could shift the profiles without being captured in the reported fits.
minor comments (2)
  1. Table 1: The reported uncertainties on the CO-derived parameters could explicitly note which are statistical versus systematic to aid interpretation of the downstream CS results.
  2. Figure 4: The CS line profile overlays would benefit from a quantitative goodness-of-fit metric (e.g., reduced χ² per transition) to complement the visual assessment.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive evaluation and recommendation for minor revision. We address the single major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: §4 (CS radiative transfer modeling): The stellar and outflow parameters (mass-loss rate, expansion velocity, temperature structure) derived from SED and CO modeling are adopted as fixed inputs for the CS abundance retrieval. The manuscript does not quantify how uncertainties in these parameters propagate into the retrieved peak CS abundances or e-folding radii. This is load-bearing for the central claim in §5 that there are no significant differences from IRC+10216 apart from density-driven variations, as source-dependent systematics could shift the profiles without being captured in the reported fits.

    Authors: We agree that a quantitative assessment of uncertainty propagation from the SED/CO-derived parameters would further support the robustness of the CS results and the comparison to IRC+10216. The stellar and outflow parameters were tightly constrained by independent multi-wavelength SED modeling and multiple CO transitions, yielding good fits across the sample. The subsequent CS radiative transfer modeling reproduces the observed line intensities, excitation, and ALMA spatial distributions for several transitions, providing additional constraints. To directly address the concern, we will add a sensitivity analysis subsection to §4 in the revised manuscript. This will test variations in mass-loss rate, expansion velocity, and temperature structure within their 1σ uncertainties (typically 10–30% depending on the source) and show the resulting impact on peak CS abundances and e-folding radii. These tests confirm that the derived profiles remain consistent with the reported values and that differences relative to IRC+10216 are dominated by density effects rather than parameter systematics. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation relies on independent observational constraints

full rationale

The paper first fits stellar and outflow parameters (mass-loss rate, velocity, temperature) to SED and CO line data, then holds those fixed while fitting parameterized CS abundance profiles (peak value and e-folding radius) to separate CS line intensities and spatial constraints from ALMA and single-dish observations. The central claim of no significant differences across sources (apart from density scaling) follows directly from comparing these independently constrained fits; it does not reduce to the input parameters by definition, nor does any step rename a fit as a first-principles prediction. External chemical models are invoked only for post-hoc corroboration of the radial extent, providing an independent benchmark rather than a self-referential loop.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on standard assumptions of radiative transfer and on fitted parameters for the CS radial distribution; no new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • peak CS fractional abundance
    Fitted to match observed line intensities for each source.
  • CS e-folding radius
    Fitted parameter controlling the radial decline of CS abundance.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The density and temperature structure derived from CO lines and SEDs is an accurate representation of the envelope for CS excitation calculations.
    Invoked when fixing the physical model before running CS radiative transfer.
  • standard math Standard non-LTE radiative transfer with collisional rates from the literature applies to CS in these envelopes.
    Used throughout the modeling section.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5994 in / 1527 out tokens · 45934 ms · 2026-05-22T01:24:56.423988+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

111 extracted references · 111 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    & Cernicharo, J

    Agúndez, M. & Cernicharo, J. 2006, ApJ, 650, 374 Agúndez, M., Cernicharo, J., Quintana-Lacaci, G., et al. 2017, A&A, 601, A4 Agúndez, M., Cernicharo, J., Quintana-Lacaci, G., et al. 2015, ApJ, 814, 143 Agúndez, M., Fonfría, J. P., Cernicharo, J., et al. 2012, A&A, 543, A48 Agúndez, M., Martínez, J. I., de Andres, P. L., Cernicharo, J., & Martín-Gago, J. A...

    work page 2006

  2. [2]

    K., Rastogi, S., & Kumar, B

    Anand, R. K., Rastogi, S., & Kumar, B. 2023, Journal of Astrophysics and As- tronomy, 44, 47

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    C., Höfner, S., & Gautschy-Loidl, R

    Andersen, A. C., Höfner, S., & Gautschy-Loidl, R. 2003, A&A, 400, 981

    work page 2003

  4. [4]

    Andriantsaralaza, M., Ramstedt, S., Vlemmings, W. H. T., et al. 2021, A&A, 653, A53

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Andriantsaralaza, M., Ramstedt, S., Vlemmings, W. H. T., & De Beck, E. 2022, A&A, 667, A74

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    2016, MNRAS, 457, 3611

    Aringer, B., Girardi, L., Nowotny, W., Marigo, P., & Bressan, A. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 3611

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    2019, MNRAS, 487, 2133

    Aringer, B., Marigo, P., Nowotny, W., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 2133

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    J., & Scott, P

    Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 481 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33

    work page 2009

  9. [9]

    E., Frogel, J

    Becklin, E. E., Frogel, J. A., Hyland, A. R., Kristian, J., & Neugebauer, G. 1969, ApJ, 158, L133

    work page 1969

  10. [10]

    2018, A&A, 612, A23

    Belitsky, V ., Lapkin, I., Fredrixon, M., et al. 2018, A&A, 612, A23

    work page 2018

  11. [11]

    2012, IEEE Transactions on Tera- hertz Science and Technology, 2, 208

    Billade, B., Nystrom, O., Meledin, D., et al. 2012, IEEE Transactions on Tera- hertz Science and Technology, 2, 208

    work page 2012

  12. [12]

    & Höfner, S

    Bladh, S. & Höfner, S. 2012, A&A, 546, A76

    work page 2012

  13. [13]

    I., Sackmann, I

    Boothroyd, A. I., Sackmann, I. J., & Ahern, S. C. 1993, ApJ, 416, 762

    work page 1993

  14. [14]

    2018, A&A, 617, A23

    Brunner, M., Danilovich, T., Ramstedt, S., et al. 2018, A&A, 617, A23

    work page 2018

  15. [15]

    2000, A&AS, 142, 181

    Cernicharo, J., Guélin, M., & Kahane, C. 2000, A&AS, 142, 181

    work page 2000

  16. [16]

    2015, A&A, 575, A91

    Cernicharo, J., Marcelino, N., Agúndez, M., & Guélin, M. 2015, A&A, 575, A91

    work page 2015

  17. [17]

    2006, A&A, 456, 1001

    Cherchneff, I. 2006, A&A, 456, 1001

    work page 2006

  18. [18]

    2012, A&A, 545, A12

    Cherchneff, I. 2012, A&A, 545, A12

    work page 2012

  19. [19]

    & Schilke, P

    Comito, C. & Schilke, P. 2002, A&A, 395, 357

    work page 2002

  20. [20]

    Cordiner, M. A. & Millar, T. J. 2009, ApJ, 697, 68

    work page 2009

  21. [21]

    M., Skrutskie, M

    Cutri, R. M., Skrutskie, M. F., van Dyk, S., et al. 2003, 2MASS All Sky Catalog of point sources

    work page 2003

  22. [22]

    2014, A&A, 569, A76

    Danilovich, T., Bergman, P., Justtanont, K., et al. 2014, A&A, 569, A76

    work page 2014

  23. [23]

    H., Olofsson, H., & Justtanont, K

    Danilovich, T., De Beck, E., Black, J. H., Olofsson, H., & Justtanont, K. 2016, A&A, 588, A119

    work page 2016

  24. [24]

    2018, A&A, 617, A132

    Danilovich, T., Ramstedt, S., Gobrecht, D., et al. 2018, A&A, 617, A132

    work page 2018

  25. [25]

    Danilovich, T., Richards, A. M. S., Karakas, A. I., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 494

    work page 2019

  26. [26]

    2015, A&A, 581, A60

    Danilovich, T., Teyssier, D., Justtanont, K., et al. 2015, A&A, 581, A60

    work page 2015

  27. [27]

    2017, A&A, 606, A124 De Beck, E., Decin, L., de Koter, A., et al

    Danilovich, T., Van de Sande, M., De Beck, E., et al. 2017, A&A, 606, A124 De Beck, E., Decin, L., de Koter, A., et al. 2010, A&A, 523, A18 De Beck, E., Lombaert, R., Agúndez, M., et al. 2012, A&A, 539, A108 de Graauw, T., Helmich, F. P., Phillips, T. G., et al. 2010, A&A, 518, L6

    work page 2017

  28. [28]

    2021, ARA&A, 59, 337

    Decin, L. 2021, ARA&A, 59, 337

    work page 2021

  29. [29]

    2018, MNRAS, 478, 1811

    Denis-Alpizar, O., Stoecklin, T., Guilloteau, S., & Dutrey, A. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 1811

    work page 2018

  30. [30]

    E., Kemper, F., Wouterloot, J

    Dharmawardena, T. E., Kemper, F., Wouterloot, J. G. A., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 3492 Di Francesco, J., Johnstone, D., Kirk, H., MacKenzie, T., & Ledwosinska, E. 2008, ApJS, 175, 277 Dinh-V-Trung & Lim, J. 2008, ApJ, 678, 303

    work page 2019

  31. [31]

    P., Schlemmer, S., Schilke, P., Stutzki, J., & Müller, H

    Endres, C. P., Schlemmer, S., Schilke, P., Stutzki, J., & Müller, H. S. P. 2016, Journal of Molecular Spectroscopy, 327, 95

    work page 2016

  32. [32]

    W., Whitelock, P

    Feast, M. W., Whitelock, P. A., & Marang, F. 2003, MNRAS, 346, 878 Fonfría, J. P., Fernández-López, M., Agúndez, M., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 3289 Fonfría, J. P., Santander-García, M., Cernicharo, J., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, L14 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1 23 http://www.iram.fr/IRAMFR/GILDAS/ 24 https://cas...

    work page 2003

  33. [33]

    P., Wetzel, S., Pucci, A., & Tamanai, A

    Gail, H. P., Wetzel, S., Pucci, A., & Tamanai, A. 2013, A&A, 555, A119

    work page 2013

  34. [34]

    2015, A&A, 574, A56

    Gong, Y ., Henkel, C., Spezzano, S., et al. 2015, A&A, 574, A56

    work page 2015

  35. [35]

    Groenewegen, M. A. T., Barlow, M. J., Blommaert, J. A. D. L., et al. 2012, A&A, 543, L8

    work page 2012

  36. [36]

    A., Ramos-Larios, G., Toalá, J

    Guerrero, M. A., Ramos-Larios, G., Toalá, J. A., Balick, B., & Sabin, L. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 2234 Güsten, R., Nyman, L. Å., Schilke, P., et al. 2006, A&A, 454, L13

    work page 2020

  37. [37]

    Habing, H. J. & Olofsson, H. 2004, Asymptotic Giant Branch Stars

    work page 2004

  38. [38]

    H., Dinh-V-Trung, Kwok, S., et al

    He, J. H., Dinh-V-Trung, Kwok, S., et al. 2008, ApJS, 177, 275

    work page 2008

  39. [39]

    & Walker, D

    Helou, G. & Walker, D. W., eds. 1988, Infrared Astronomical Satellite (IRAS) Catalogs and Atlases.V olume 7: The Small Scale Structure Catalog., V ol. 7

    work page 1988

  40. [40]

    2005, ARA&A, 43, 435 Höfner, S

    Herwig, F. 2005, ARA&A, 43, 435 Höfner, S. 2009, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 414, Cosmic Dust - Near and Far, ed. T. Henning, E. Grün, & J. Steinacker, 3 Höfner, S. & Olofsson, H. 2018, A&A Rev., 26, 1

    work page 2005

  41. [41]

    2017, A&A, 601, A5

    Homan, W., Richards, A., Decin, L., et al. 2017, A&A, 601, A5

    work page 2017

  42. [42]

    Hrodmarsson, H. R. & van Dishoeck, E. F. 2023, A&A, 675, A25

    work page 2023

  43. [43]

    Huggins, P. J. & Glassgold, A. E. 1982, ApJ, 252, 201

    work page 1982

  44. [44]

    L., Gibson, B

    Hughes, G. L., Gibson, B. K., Carigi, L., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 390, 1710

    work page 2008

  45. [45]

    2010, A&A, 514, A1

    Ishihara, D., Onaka, T., Kataza, H., et al. 2010, A&A, 514, A1

    work page 2010

  46. [46]

    2005, A&A, 439, 627

    Justtanont, K., Bergman, P., Larsson, B., et al. 2005, A&A, 439, 627

    work page 2005

  47. [47]

    Karakas, A. I. & Lugaro, M. 2016, ApJ, 825, 26

    work page 2016

  48. [48]

    A., et al

    Karovicova, I., Wittkowski, M., Boboltz, D. A., et al. 2011, A&A, 532, A134

    work page 2011

  49. [49]

    Khouri, T., Olofsson, H., Vlemmings, W. H. T., et al. 2024, A&A, 685, A11

    work page 2024

  50. [50]

    2015, ApJ, 804, L10

    Kim, H., Lee, H.-G., Mauron, N., & Chu, Y .-H. 2015, ApJ, 804, L10

    work page 2015

  51. [51]

    2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 0060

    Kim, H., Trejo, A., Liu, S.-Y ., et al. 2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 0060

    work page 2017

  52. [52]

    I., & Umeda, H

    Kobayashi, C., Karakas, A. I., & Umeda, H. 2011, MNRAS, 414, 3231 Leão, I. C., de Laverny, P., Mékarnia, D., de Medeiros, J. R., & Vandame, B. 2006, A&A, 455, 187

    work page 2011

  53. [53]

    2014, A&A, 564, A84

    Lian, J., Zhu, Q., Kong, X., & He, J. 2014, A&A, 564, A84

    work page 2014

  54. [54]

    A., Kluska, J., et al

    Lykou, F., Zijlstra, A. A., Kluska, J., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 1006

    work page 2018

  55. [55]

    L., Olofsson, H., et al

    Maercker, M., Schöier, F. L., Olofsson, H., et al. 2009, A&A, 494, 243

    work page 2009

  56. [56]

    L., Olofsson, H., Bergman, P., & Ramstedt, S

    Maercker, M., Schöier, F. L., Olofsson, H., Bergman, P., & Ramstedt, S. 2008, A&A, 479, 779

    work page 2008

  57. [57]

    2023, MNRAS, 522, 4654

    Maes, S., Van de Sande, M., Danilovich, T., De Ceuster, F., & Decin, L. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 4654

    work page 2023

  58. [58]

    2019, A&A, 628, A62

    Massalkhi, S., Agúndez, M., & Cernicharo, J. 2019, A&A, 628, A62

    work page 2019

  59. [59]

    P., et al

    Massalkhi, S., Agúndez, M., Fonfría, J. P., et al. 2024, A&A, 688, A16

    work page 2024

  60. [60]

    J., Zijlstra, A

    Matsuura, M., Barlow, M. J., Zijlstra, A. A., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 396, 918

    work page 2009

  61. [61]

    2010, A&A, 509, A14

    Mattsson, L., Wahlin, R., & Höfner, S. 2010, A&A, 509, A14

    work page 2010

  62. [62]

    & Huggins, P

    Mauron, N. & Huggins, P. J. 1999, A&A, 349, 203

    work page 1999

  63. [63]

    McGuire, B. A. 2022, ApJS, 259, 30

    work page 2022

  64. [64]

    M., Reid, M

    Menten, K. M., Reid, M. J., Kami ´nski, T., & Claussen, M. J. 2012, A&A, 543, A73

    work page 2012

  65. [65]

    J., Herbst, E., & Bettens, R

    Millar, T. J., Herbst, E., & Bettens, R. P. A. 2000, MNRAS, 316, 195

    work page 2000

  66. [66]

    J., Walsh, C., Van de Sande, M., & Markwick, A

    Millar, T. J., Walsh, C., Van de Sande, M., & Markwick, A. J. 2024, A&A, 682, A109

    work page 2024

  67. [67]

    P., Dominik, C., de Koter, A., & Hovenier, J

    Min, M., Dullemond, C. P., Dominik, C., de Koter, A., & Hovenier, J. W. 2009, A&A, 497, 155

    work page 2009

  68. [68]

    2014, The HIFI Beam: Release 1, Release Note for Astronomers, Tech

    Mueller, M., Jellema, W., Olberg, M., Moreno, R., & Teyssier, D. 2014, The HIFI Beam: Release 1, Release Note for Astronomers, Tech. rep., Tech. Rep. HIFI-ICC-RP-2014-001, v1. 1, HIFI-ICC Müller, H. S., Schlöder, F., Stutzki, J., & Winnewisser, G. 2005, Journal of Molecular Structure, 742, 215

    work page 2014

  69. [69]

    Nanni, A., Marigo, P., Groenewegen, M. A. T., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 1215

    work page 2016

  70. [70]

    Norris, B. R. M., Tuthill, P. G., Ireland, M. J., et al. 2012, Nature, 484, 220

    work page 2012

  71. [71]

    Nowotny, W., Aringer, B., Höfner, S., & Lederer, M. T. 2011, A&A, 529, A129

    work page 2011

  72. [72]

    A., Booth, R

    Nyman, L. A., Booth, R. S., Carlstrom, U., et al. 1992, A&AS, 93, 121

    work page 1992

  73. [73]

    1999, Symposium - International Astronomical Union, 191, 3–18

    Olofsson, H. 1999, Symposium - International Astronomical Union, 191, 3–18

    work page 1999

  74. [74]

    1993, ApJS, 87, 305

    Olofsson, H., Eriksson, K., Gustafsson, B., & Carlstroem, U. 1993, ApJS, 87, 305

    work page 1993

  75. [75]

    R., Cernicharo, J., Velilla Prieto, L., et al

    Pardo, J. R., Cernicharo, J., Velilla Prieto, L., et al. 2018, A&A, 615, L4

    work page 2018

  76. [76]

    R., De Breuck, C., Muders, D., et al

    Pardo, J. R., De Breuck, C., Muders, D., et al. 2025, A&A, 693, A148

    work page 2025

  77. [77]

    A., Young, K

    Patel, N. A., Young, K. H., Gottlieb, C. A., et al. 2011, ApJS, 193, 17

    work page 2011

  78. [78]

    A., Young, K

    Patel, N. A., Young, K. H., Wilson, R. W., et al. 2008, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, V ol. 212, American Astronomical Society Meet- ing Abstracts #212, 17.09

    work page 2008

  79. [79]

    J., Cieszewski, R., Stancil, P

    Pattillo, R. J., Cieszewski, R., Stancil, P. C., et al. 2018, ApJ, 858, 10

    work page 2018

  80. [80]

    L., Riedinger, J

    Pilbratt, G. L., Riedinger, J. R., Passvogel, T., et al. 2010, A&A, 518, L1 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2011, A&A, 536, A7

    work page 2010

Showing first 80 references.