Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 51 references

Water vapor as a probe of the origin of gas in debris disks

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Cold water vapor can tell whether a debris disk's gas is primordial or collisionally produced.

desk verdict A fresh, plausible order-of-magnitude proposal for distinguishing primordial from collisional gas in debris disks via cold water vapor; the sharp predicted jump is partly built in, but the core idea deserves a serious review. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.09011 v1 pith:HYS3C7GW submitted 2024-11-13 astro-ph.EP

Yasuhiro Hasegawa , Riouhei Nakatani , Isabel Rebollido , Meredith MacGregor , Björn J. R. Davidsson , Dariusz C. Lis , Neal Turner , Karen Willacy This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords debrisdiskscoldwatervaporCOgasphotodesorptionprimordialsecondaryfar-infraredobservatoryprotoplanetary
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Debris disks around young stars sometimes contain gas, but CO observations alone cannot tell whether that gas is leftover from the protoplanetary disk or was generated recently by collisions between icy bodies. This paper argues that cold water vapor breaks the degeneracy. Under both hypotheses, cold water vapor is produced by the same mechanism—photodesorption of water ice from dust grains by attenuated ultraviolet light—so the underlying physics is unified, yet the predicted $\mathrm{H_2O}$-to-CO mass ratio differs by two orders of magnitude: about $10^{-5}$ for primordial gas and $10^{-3}$ for collisionally produced gas. Switching between the two branches at a CO mass near $10^{-3}\,\mathrm{M}_\oplus$ turns the water-mass-versus-CO-mass relation into a non-monotonic jump that statistical surveys can identify. The obstacle is observational: cold water emits in the far-infrared, so the test requires a future space observatory with roughly a hundred times Herschel's sensitivity.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the photodesorption–photodissociation balance, Eq. (10): $\sigma_{\rm photo} N_{\rm H_2O,vap} = \sigma_{\rm dust} Y N_{\rm dust}$, where photodesorption (the ejection of water molecules from dust by ultraviolet photons) is balanced against photodissociation (their destruction by the same radiation). Because both rates scale with the UV flux, the column density of cold water vapor becomes independent of the UV intensity and is set instead by the dust surface area available—which is exactly where the two hypotheses differ. The argument then reduces to the ratio identities (12) and (14) with a fixed switch point at $\mathrm{M_{CO}} \sim 10^{-3}\,\mathrm{M}_\oplus$, producing the non-monotonic jump that serves as the observable signature.

What would settle it

Measure $\mathrm{H_2O}$ and CO masses in roughly two dozen debris disks spanning CO masses from below $10^{-5}$ to above $10^{-1}\,\mathrm{M}_\oplus$ with a future far-infrared observatory; the diagnostic fails if the $\mathrm{H_2O}$-mass-versus-CO-mass relation is smoothly monotonic with no jump near $10^{-3}\,\mathrm{M}_\oplus$, or if disks with $\sim 10^{-1}\,\mathrm{M}_\oplus$ of CO show water masses below roughly $10^{-7}\,\mathrm{M}_\oplus$, well under the primordial-branch prediction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the mass of cold water vapor in a debris disk, plotted against the disk's CO mass, encodes the origin of the gas. For residual primordial gas, Eq. (12) gives $\mathrm{M_{H_2O}/M_{CO}} \simeq 10^{-5}$; for collisionally produced gas, Eq. (14) gives $\simeq 10^{-3}$. Both estimates come from Eq. (10), the local balance between photodesorption and photodissociation, evaluated with the dust population appropriate to each hypothesis: 0.1 $\mu$m grains at 1% of the solid mass in the primordial case, and blowout-limited 1 $\mu$m grains at full cometary abundance in the collisional case. Because the transition CO mass is fixed near $10^{-3}\,\mathrm{M}_\oplus$ by photoevaporation (Eq. 1), the predicted $\mathrm{H_2O}$ mass and $\mathrm{H_2O}$-to-solid ratio both show a jump at that point. The paper argues this non-monotonic feature can be detected statistically with roughly ten to thirty targets, and shows that the one available detection (TW Hydrae) and the one strong upper limit ($\beta$ Pictoris) are consistent with the predicted range.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation rests on the assumption that cold water vapor abundance is set solely by the photodesorption–photodissociation balance with a single characteristic grain radius and a fixed dust fraction; Appendix A shows this holds only for disks with solid mass below about $0.1\,\mathrm{M}_\oplus$ (CO below about $10^{-3}\,\mathrm{M}_\oplus$), and for more massive, CO-rich disks the water abundance could be much lower, erasing the very jump the diagnostic relies on.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With a future far-infrared observatory, surveying roughly 10–30 gas-bearing debris disks at $\mathrm{H_2O}$ mass sensitivity $10^{-9}{-}10^{-8}\,\mathrm{M}_\oplus$ and CO sensitivity $10^{-4}\,\mathrm{M}_\oplus$ should be enough to see the predicted jump.
  • Disks with CO mass above about $10^{-3}\,\mathrm{M}_\oplus$ should populate the primordial branch, while lower-CO disks should populate the collisional branch, so the water-vapor census doubles as an evolutionary tracer for planet-forming disks.
  • Detected cold water vapor in CO-rich debris disks is expected at masses around $10^{-7}{-}10^{-6}\,\mathrm{M}_\oplus$, comparable to the TW Hydrae detection, so non-detection at that level in such disks would contradict the primordial branch.
  • For debris disks with solid masses above roughly $0.1\,\mathrm{M}_\oplus$, the photodesorption balance assumption breaks down and the water abundance could be much lower, marking a boundary on where the diagnostic applies.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Inference: if the predicted jump is observed, the same data could calibrate the transition CO mass empirically rather than taking it from the photoevaporation estimate, linking gas origin to disk dispersal history.
  • Inference: in systems where stellar UV radiation dominates and water's lifetime shortens to days, OH emission—water's photodissociation product—could serve as an indirect probe, an extension the paper mentions in its outlook.
  • Inference: because the primordial branch's normalization rests on a 1% dust fraction calibrated to a single disk, a multi-target survey would test whether that fraction is universal or evolves with disk age and dust processing.
  • Inference: a null result—no water and no jump—would shift attention to alternative secondary-gas mechanisms such as cometary evaporation or radiogenic degassing, which the paper lists but does not model.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that the mass of cold water vapor, plotted against CO gas mass, can diagnose whether gas in debris disks originated as residual primordial protoplanetary gas (Hypothesis 1) or as collisionally produced secondary gas (Hypothesis 2). The authors perform order-of-magnitude calculations showing that for both hypotheses the cold water abundance is set by a photodesorption-photodissociation balance (Eq. 10), and from this they derive H2O/CO conversion factors of about 1e-5 for Hypothesis 1 (Eq. 12) and 1e-3 for Hypothesis 2 (Eq. 14). Switching between these conversions at a transition CO mass near 1e-3 M_Earth yields a non-monotonic jump in predicted H2O mass (Fig. 3). The paper compares this prediction tentatively with TW Hya and beta Pic, argues that current facilities cannot detect cold water vapor in the far-IR, and uses a Monte Carlo exercise (Appendix C) to estimate required sample sizes and sensitivities for a future FIR observatory.

Significance. If the predicted non-monotonic jump is robust, the paper offers a genuinely useful observational strategy: it identifies a specific molecule, a specific wavelength range, and a quantitative statistical target for distinguishing primordial from secondary gas in debris disks. The analytical transparency is a strength: the assumptions are stated, the order-of-magnitude algebra is straightforward, and the main caveat (validity of the local balance at high solid mass) is explicitly acknowledged in the Summary. The proposal also connects to a concrete mission context, which makes it actionable for future instrument design. However, the significance is conditional on the survival of the jump under the stated validity limits, and on the independence of the calibration from the test, both of which need strengthening before the central claim is fully supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix A and Fig. 3] The predicted non-monotonic jump relies on Eq. (10) being valid over the entire CO-mass range shown for both branches. Appendix A states the validity condition as MZ,ref > 0.1 M_Earth (or MCO > 1e-3 M_Earth), but this 'or' is only correct for Hypothesis 2. For Hypothesis 1, Eq. (5) gives MCO/Msolid ~ 0.1, so MZ,ref ~ 10 MCO and the local-balance assumption breaks down at MCO ~ 1e-2 M_Earth, not at 1e-3 M_Earth. Consequently, the red branch in Fig. 3 is drawn using Eq. (12) in a regime where freezeout and collisional timescales may be shorter than photodesorption and photodissociation, and the true water vapor abundance there could be much lower. At the same time, the orange branch is evaluated right at the transition MCO = 1e-3 M_Earth, where MZ,ref = 0.1 M_Earth, so the jump height is marginal under the paper's own criterion. This does not invalidate the qualitative idea, but the quantitative factor-of-100 jump presented as the diagnostic signal is not robust within the stated validity limits. The authors should recompute the predicted H2O mass in the parameter space where Eq. (10) holds, or clearly mark the breakdown region and discuss how the jump would be modified.
  2. [Section 2.4, Eq. (11) and Fig. 3 left] The normalization fdust = 1e-2 is chosen to better reproduce the result of Du & Bergin (2014) and the cold water vapor detection toward TW Hya. Presenting the TW Hya point in Fig. 3 as a tentative test of the prediction is therefore partially circular: the same observation is used to set the free parameter that fixes the vertical normalization of the Hypothesis 1 branch. To make the comparison a genuine validation, the authors should either treat fdust as a fitted parameter and exclude TW Hya from the test, or provide an independent constraint on fdust (e.g., from dust growth and settling models) so that the TW Hya comparison is not simultaneously calibrating and checking the model.
  3. [Section 2.4, Eq. (1), and Appendix C] The switch between the two hypotheses is placed at MCO = 1e-3 M_Earth, which the text introduces as 'as an example'. The true transition CO mass is an unknown function of disk age, stellar type, and collisional history. The Monte Carlo in Appendix C adopts this same value (with smooth transitions up to 5e-4 M_Earth), but the principal observable signature—the location and even the existence of the jump—depends on this choice. The paper should justify the transition mass more carefully and show how the predicted jump would appear if the transition occurs over a range or at a different mass; otherwise the non-monotonicity is partly assumed rather than derived.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.2, Eq. (5)] The sentence 'it should be noted that in protoplanetary disks, solids may be in the form of dust as well as much larger bodies such as planetesimals and (proto)planets. Accordingly, our assumption (i.e., Msolid ≃ Msolid) in equation (3)...' contains an apparent typo: 'Msolid ≃ Msolid' should presumably be 'Msolid ≃ Mdust' or 'Msolid ≃ MZ,ref'.
  2. [Fig. 3 caption] The phrase 'tentative constrains' should be 'tentative constraints'.
  3. [General notation] The manuscript alternates between 'dust' and 'solids' in defining Msolid; for clarity, specify explicitly whether Msolid in Eqs. (3), (5), and (9) includes only dust or also larger bodies, since the derived upper limit in Eq. (5) depends on this distinction.
  4. [Appendix A, after Eq. (A.2)] The phrase 'where MZ,ref is estimated at MCO,tran (Figure 2)' is ambiguous: it should state that MZ,ref is evaluated using the mass ratio implied by each hypothesis at the quoted CO mass, since the conversion differs by an order of magnitude between Hypotheses 1 and 2.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The Hypothesis-1 water-vapor normalization is calibrated to the TW Hya/Du & Bergin measurement and then TW Hya is quoted as a consistency check, making part of the predicted branch and jump height constructed rather than predicted; the qualitative two-hypothesis contrast retains independent content.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 2.4, after Eq. (11); Fig. 3 consistency paragraph]
    "In order to better reproduce the result of Du & Bergin (2014, see their equation (29)) and the observation of cold water vapor in a protoplanetary disk (Hogerheijde et al. 2011), the abundance of such dust particles is set at 1 % (i.e., fdust = 10−2)... Importantly, these values are consistent with our estimate (Figure 3)."

    The free parameter fdust enters Eq. (11) and hence Eq. (12), setting the absolute Hypothesis-1 water-vapor mass per unit CO mass. Its value is explicitly chosen to reproduce Du & Bergin (2014) and the TW Hya cold-water-vapor detection (Hogerheijde et al. 2011). The same TW Hya datum is then plotted in Fig. 3 and judged consistent with the estimate, so the Hypothesis-1 branch's absolute prediction is not an independent test: it is normalized to the test point. The factor-100 separation between Eqs. (12) and (14) also depends on this calibrated fdust = 10^-2 versus fdust = 1 assumed for Hypothesis 2, so part of the jump height in Fig. 3 is constructed by the fit rather than derived independently.

full rationale

The rest of the derivation chain is largely self-contained order-of-magnitude physics: Eq. (10) is a standard local balance between photodesorption and photodissociation, with Y and sigma_photo taken from external laboratory and astrophysical values; Eqs. (5), (9), (12), and (14) then follow algebraically from quoted ISM, comet, and KBO composition ratios. No load-bearing uniqueness theorem or self-citation chain is used, and the authors do not disguise the fdust choice. The only clear circular step is the calibration of the Hypothesis-1 normalization to the TW Hya measurement followed by the use of TW Hya as a validation point in Fig. 3. In addition, Appendix A limits Eq. (10) to MZ,ref < 0.1 Earth masses, and the Summary concedes that for more massive disks 'the resulting water vapor abundance could be very low.' That is a robustness and correctness caveat rather than a circular step, but it is important context because it affects exactly the transition region where the non-monotonic jump is predicted. On balance, the central qualitative proposal is not circular, but one quantitative prediction is fitted to its own test datum and the claimed contrast is partly built from that fit, so a partial-circularity score of 6 is appropriate.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central estimates rest on a chain of adopted mass ratios and dust properties from the literature, plus one calibrated dust fraction (fdust = 1e-2) tuned to match existing water vapor observations. No new particles or forces are introduced. The photodesorption balance in Eq. (10) is the key physical assumption, and the single transition mass in the Monte Carlo is an ad hoc modeling choice.

free parameters (10)
  • fCO_gas = 1e-3 (range 1e-4 to 1e-3)
    CO-to-H2 mass ratio adopted from ISM and disk observations; controls Hypothesis 1 MCO/Msolid and H2O/CO.
  • fGtoS = 100 (range 1 to 5e2)
    Gas-to-solid ratio for early protoplanetary disks; sets Hypothesis 1 normalization.
  • fCO_ice = 0.1 (range 4e-3 to 0.3)
    CO ice to water ice ratio from solar system comets; sets Hypothesis 2 H2O/CO.
  • fItoR = 0.1 (range 5e-3 to 0.3)
    Ice-to-rock ratio from comets and Kuiper Belt objects; sets Hypothesis 2 MCO/Msolid.
  • fdust_Hyp1 = 0.01
    Fraction of solids in small dust for the primordial branch; chosen to reproduce Du and Bergin (2014) and the TW Hya water vapor mass. This is a calibrated value.
  • rdust_Hyp1 = 0.1 micron
    Characteristic dust size for photodesorption in the protoplanetary disk-like environment.
  • rdust_Hyp2 = 1 micron
    Characteristic dust size for debris disks, set by the blowout size below which grains are expelled.
  • Y_photodesorption = 1e-3
    Standard photodesorption yield of water ice from Westley et al. (1995) and Oberg et al. (2009).
  • sigma_photo = 1e-17 cm2
    Photodissociation cross-section of water for interstellar UV radiation.
  • MCO_tran = 1e-3 M_Earth
    Transition CO mass from a photoevaporation estimate; the assumed location of the switch in H2O conversion factors.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Cold water vapor abundance is set by the local balance between photodesorption and photodissociation, sigma_photo * N_H2O,vap = sigma_dust * Y * N_dust (Eq. 10).
    Invoked in Section 2.4; the same UV attenuation factor is assumed to enter both rates and cancel, following Dominik et al. (2005) and Du and Bergin (2014).
  • domain assumption Photodesorption prevents complete freezeout of water in gas-poor debris disk environments, so cold vapor persists.
    Section 2.1 and footnote 5; central to both hypotheses.
  • domain assumption Interstellar UV radiation dominates over stellar UV for photodissociation in debris disks with detected CO.
    Section 2.4, citing Kral et al. (2017); Appendix B discusses the stellar UV case.
  • domain assumption Coma abundance ratios of CO and water in solar system comets reflect nucleus ice abundance ratios.
    Eqs. (7) and (8); the authors note coma ratios may not reflect nucleus ratios, so this is a stated simplification.
  • domain assumption A photoevaporation rate of 1e-10 solar masses per year and a transition duration of 1e5 years set the gas mass at the protoplanetary to debris disk transition.
    Section 2.2, Eq. (1), based on Alexander et al. (2014).
  • domain assumption A steady-state collisional cascade keeps dust and gas production high enough that detailed collision properties do not affect the water vapor abundance.
    Appendix A; the paper relies on this to avoid modeling the collisional production rate in detail.
  • ad hoc to paper The two hypotheses can be separated by a single transition CO mass of 1e-3 M_Earth, with all disks above it primordial and all below it collisional.
    This is the illustrative switch used in Fig. 3 and the Monte Carlo in Appendix C; it is not derived from a disk model and is the main source of the predicted non-monotonicity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Water vapor as a probe of the origin of gas in debris disks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HYS3C7GW

@misc{pith2026241109011,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Water vapor as a probe of the origin of gas in debris disks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HYS3C7GW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.09011}
}
read the original abstract

Debris disks embrace the formation and evolution histories of planetary systems. Recent detections of gas in these disks have received considerable attention, as its origin ties up ongoing disk evolution and the present composition of planet-forming materials. Observations of the CO gas alone, however, cannot reliably differentiate between two leading, competing hypotheses: (1) the observed gas is the leftover of protoplanetary disk gas, and (2) the gas is the outcome of collisions between icy bodies. We propose that such differentiation may become possible by observing cold water vapor. Order-of-magnitude analyses and comparison with existing observations are performed. We show that different hypotheses lead to different masses of water vapor. This occurs because, for both hypotheses, the presence of cold water vapor is attributed to photodesorption from dust particles by attenuated interstellar UV radiation. Cold water vapor cannot be observed by current astronomical facilities as most of its emission lines fall in the far-IR (FIR) range. This work highlights the need for a future FIR space observatory to reveal the origin of gas in debris disks and the evolution of planet-forming disks in general.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.09011 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A schematic diagram of time-evolution of planet-forming disks. The host star is denoted by the star symbol, planet-forming materials are represented by the brown and blue dots, and disk gas by the green ovals. Hypothesis 1 considers that observed gas is the leftover of primordial gas, while Hypothesis 2 considers that the gas is produced by collisions among icy bodies. 2. Determining the origin of gas 2.1. Basic pic… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The mass ratio of CO gas to solids as a function of CO gas mass. The theoretical estimates derived from the order-of-magnitude analysis are denoted by the red solid, the orange dashed, and the black dotted lines, respectively (see equations (5), (9), and (1)). For comparison, the observed data are included (Moór et al. 2017, 2019; Di Folco et al. 2020; Rebollido et al. 2022); the circles represent targets that exhib… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The predicted water vapor mass and its mass ratio relative to the solid mass as a function of CO mass in the left and right panels, respectively. All the symbols are defined in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Emission lines from water vapor as a function of wavelength. The excitation temperature increases from the top to the bottom panels. Different observatories cover different wavelengths; this plot confirms that water lines detected by JWST come from high excitation temp…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2014, in Pro- tostars and Planets VI, ed

    Alexander, R., Pascucci, I., Andrews, S., Armitage, P., & Cieza, L. 2014, in Pro- tostars and Planets VI, ed. H. Beuther, R. S. Klessen, C. P. Dullemond, & T. Henning, 475–496

    2014

  2. [2]

    M., Carr, J

    Banzatti, A., Pontoppidan, K. M., Carr, J. S., et al. 2023, ApJ, 957, L22

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Bergin, E., Calvet, N., D’Alessio, P., & Herczeg, G. J. 2003, ApJ, 591, L159

    work page 2003

  4. [4]

    M., Vidal-Madjar, A., & Ferlet, R

    Beust, H., Lagrange-Henri, A. M., Vidal-Madjar, A., & Ferlet, R. 1990, A&A, 236, 202

    work page 1990

  5. [5]

    2019, A&A, 630, A19

    Biver, N., Bockelée-Morvan, D., Hofstadter, M., et al. 2019, A&A, 630, A19

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    D., Wolfire, M., & Leroy, A

    Bolatto, A. D., Wolfire, M., & Leroy, A. K. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 207

    2013

  7. [7]

    C., Marino, S., et al

    Bonsor, A., Wyatt, M. C., Marino, S., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 3115

    2023

  8. [8]

    2013, MNRAS, 428, 1263

    Booth, M., Kennedy, G., Sibthorpe, B., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 428, 1263

    work page 2013

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    2004, A&A, 413, 681

    Brandeker, A., Liseau, R., Olofsson, G., & Fridlund, M. 2004, A&A, 413, 681

    2004

  2. [10]

    2023, ApJ, 951, 111

    Cataldi, G., Aikawa, Y ., Iwasaki, K., et al. 2023, ApJ, 951, 111

    2023

  3. [11]

    W., France, K., Herzceg, G

    Cauley, P. W., France, K., Herzceg, G. J., & Johns-Krull, C. M. 2021, AJ, 161, 217

    2021

  4. [12]

    2019, A&A, 628, A127

    Cavallius, M., Cataldi, G., Brandeker, A., et al. 2019, A&A, 628, A127

    2019

  5. [13]

    2020, Space Sci

    Choukroun, M., Altwegg, K., Kührt, E., et al. 2020, Space Sci. Rev., 216, 44

    2020

  6. [14]

    J., Gendrin, A., & Sotomayor, M

    Clarke, C. J., Gendrin, A., & Sotomayor, M. 2001, MNRAS, 328, 485

    2001

  7. [15]

    2020, Icarus, 335, 113421

    Combi, M., Shou, Y ., Fougere, N., et al. 2020, Icarus, 335, 113421

    2020

  8. [16]

    & Mann, I

    Czechowski, A. & Mann, I. 2007, ApJ, 660, 1541

    2007

  9. [17]

    Davidsson, B. J. R. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 5654

    2021

  10. [18]

    Davidsson, B. J. R., Samarasinha, N. H., Farnocchia, D., & Gutiérrez, P. J. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 3065 Article number, page 6 of 9 Yasuhiro Hasegawa et al.: Water vapor as a probe of the origin of gas in debris disks

    2022

  11. [19]

    Dent, W. R. F., Wyatt, M. C., Roberge, A., et al. 2014, Science, 343, 1490 Di Folco, E., Péricaud, J., Dutrey, A., et al. 2020, A&A, 635, A94

    2014

  12. [20]

    2005, ApJ, 635, L85

    Dominik, C., Ceccarelli, C., Hollenbach, D., & Kaufman, M. 2005, ApJ, 635, L85

    2005

  13. [21]

    & Bergin, E

    Du, F. & Bergin, E. A. 2014, ApJ, 792, 2

    2014

  14. [22]

    P., Mora, A., et al

    Eiroa, C., Marshall, J. P., Mora, A., et al. 2013, A&A, 555, A11

    2013

  15. [23]

    I., Bergin, E

    Favre, C., Cleeves, L. I., Bergin, E. A., Qi, C., & Blake, G. A. 2013, ApJ, 776, L38

    2013

  16. [24]

    J., McJunkin, M., & Penton, S

    France, K., Herczeg, G. J., McJunkin, M., & Penton, S. V . 2014, ApJ, 794, 160

    2014

  17. [25]

    F., et al

    Fulle, M., Blum, J., Green, S. F., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 3326

    2019

  18. [26]

    2007, A&A, 475, 755

    Grigorieva, A., Thébault, P., Artymowicz, P., & Brandeker, A. 2007, A&A, 475, 755

    2007

  19. [27]

    Habing, H. J. 1968, Bull. Astron. Inst. Netherlands, 19, 421 Harrington Pinto, O., Womack, M., Fernandez, Y ., & Bauer, J. 2022, PSJ, 3, 247

    1968

  20. [28]

    M., Vidal-Madjar, A., Ferlet, R., Albert, C

    Hobbs, L. M., Vidal-Madjar, A., Ferlet, R., Albert, C. E., & Gry, C. 1985, ApJ, 293, L29

    1985

  21. [29]

    R., Bergin, E

    Hogerheijde, M. R., Bergin, E. A., Brinch, C., et al. 2011, Science, 334, 338

    2011

  22. [30]

    1994, ApJ, 428, 654

    Hollenbach, D., Johnstone, D., Lizano, S., & Shu, F. 1994, ApJ, 428, 654

    1994

  23. [31]

    J., Bergin, E

    Hollenbach, D., Kaufman, M. J., Bergin, E. A., & Melnick, G. J. 2009, ApJ, 690, 1497

    2009

  24. [32]

    M., Duchêne, G., & Matthews, B

    Hughes, A. M., Duchêne, G., & Matthews, B. C. 2018, ARA&A, 56, 541

    2018

  25. [33]

    M., Lieman-Sifry, J., Flaherty, K

    Hughes, A. M., Lieman-Sifry, J., Flaherty, K. M., et al. 2017, ApJ, 839, 86

    2017

  26. [34]

    C., & Kennedy, G

    Kral, Q., Matrà, L., Wyatt, M. C., & Kennedy, G. M. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 521

    2017

  27. [35]

    F., et al

    Kral, Q., Wyatt, M., Carswell, R. F., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 845

    2016

  28. [36]

    2020, MNRAS, 492, 4409

    Marino, S., Flock, M., Henning, T., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 4409

    2020

  29. [37]

    2020, Frontiers in Physics, 8, 227

    Marschall, R., Markkanen, J., Gerig, S.-B., et al. 2020, Frontiers in Physics, 8, 227

    2020

  30. [38]

    F., Williams, J

    Miotello, A., van Dishoeck, E. F., Williams, J. P., et al. 2017, A&A, 599, A113 Moór, A., Curé, M., Kóspál, Á., et al. 2017, ApJ, 849, 123 Moór, A., Kral, Q., Ábrahám, P., et al. 2019, ApJ, 884, 108

    2017

  31. [39]

    Mumma, M. J. & Charnley, S. B. 2011, ARA&A, 49, 471

    2011

  32. [40]

    2021, ApJ, 915, 90

    Nakatani, R., Kobayashi, H., Kuiper, R., Nomura, H., & Aikawa, Y . 2021, ApJ, 915, 90

    2021

  33. [41]

    J., Hasegawa, Y ., et al

    Nakatani, R., Turner, N. J., Hasegawa, Y ., et al. 2023, ApJ, 959, L28 Öberg, K. I., Linnartz, H., Visser, R., & van Dishoeck, E. F. 2009, ApJ, 693, 1209

    2023

  34. [42]

    2022, MNRAS, 509, 693

    Rebollido, I., Ribas, Á., de Gregorio-Monsalvo, I., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 693

    2022

  35. [43]

    1975, ApJ, 197, 137

    Slettebak, A. 1975, ApJ, 197, 137

    1975

  36. [44]

    V ., Moór, A., Semenov, D

    Smirnov-Pinchukov, G. V ., Moór, A., Semenov, D. A., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 1148

    2022

  37. [45]

    C., van Dishoeck, E

    Tabone, B., van Hemert, M. C., van Dishoeck, E. F., & Black, J. H. 2021, A&A, 650, A192

    2021

  38. [46]

    Trapman, L., Zhang, K., van’t Ho ff, M. L. R., Hogerheijde, M. R., & Bergin, E. A. 2022, ApJ, 926, L2 van Dishoeck, E. F., Jonkheid, B., & van Hemert, M. C. 2006, Faraday Discus- sions, 133, 231

    2022

  39. [47]

    S., Baragiola, R

    Westley, M. S., Baragiola, R. A., Johnson, R. E., & Baratta, G. A. 1995, Nature, 373, 405

    1995

  40. [48]

    & Langer, W

    Willacy, K. & Langer, W. D. 2000, ApJ, 544, 903

    2000

  41. [49]

    Wyatt, M. C. 2008, ARA&A, 46, 339

    2008

  42. [50]

    2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 577

    Zannese, M., Tabone, B., Habart, E., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 577

    2024

  43. [51]

    & Song, I

    Zuckerman, B. & Song, I. 2012, ApJ, 758, 77 Article number, page 7 of 9 A&A proofs: manuscript no. debris_disks Appendix A: Production and destruction timescales of water vapor in debris disk-like environments Here, we briefly discuss production and destruction timescales of w...

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.