Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Modeling Complex Organic Molecules Formation in Cold Cores: Multi-phase Models with Non-thermal Mechanisms

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Cosmic-ray radiolysis and sputtering together can explain the five oxygen-bearing complex organic molecules observed in TMC-1 to within a factor of 3.

desk verdict A plausible and well-documented port of radiolysis plus sputtering into a Monte Carlo multiphase code, but the factor-of-3 claim is contradicted by the paper's own Table 7. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.06397 v1 pith:VXJSJRI7 submitted 2024-12-09 astro-ph.GA

Yang Lu , Donghui Quan , Qiang Chang , Long-Fei Chen , Di Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords astrochemistrycomplexorganicmoleculescolddarkcloudscosmic-rayradiolysissuprathermalreactionssputteringdesorptiongrain-surfacechemistryTMC-1
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

The paper claims that the oxygen-bearing complex organic molecules detected in cold dark clouds such as TMC-1 can be produced in place by two non-thermal processes acting together: cosmic-ray-induced radiolysis, which excites molecules locked inside dust ice mantles so they react with adjacent molecules without diffusing, and cosmic-ray sputtering, which lifts the products from the ice into the gas phase. At 10 K, ordinary diffusive grain-surface chemistry is too slow, and gas-phase reactions alone underpredict these species, so the mechanism matters if models are to explain the observations. The authors add 46 radiolysis reactions, 343 suprathermal (excited-state) reaction channels, and 197 sputtering channels to a multiphase Monte Carlo gas-grain model. In four model variants with different ice-composition sputtering rates, the predicted abundances of $\mathrm{CH_3OH}$, $\mathrm{HCOOCH_3}$, $\mathrm{CH_3OCH_3}$, $\mathrm{CH_3CHO}$, and $\mathrm{C_2H_5OH}$ agree with TMC-1 observations within a factor of 3 at the best-fitting time, and 63 of 94 compared species agree within one order of magnitude.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are the suprathermal reaction network and the sputtering rate law. In the network, 25 ice species can be excited by cosmic rays; an excited species reacts immediately with one neighbouring molecule selected by abundance-weighted probability, with 343 product channels (for example, $\mathrm{CH_3O^{*}} + \mathrm{HCO} \rightarrow \mathrm{HCOOCH_3}$). The multiphase model resolves the ice into a diffusive active surface layer, immobile normal sites, and mobile interstitial sites, and it is simulated with an accelerated Gillespie stochastic algorithm. Sputtering enters through $k_{scr} = (\zeta / 3 \times 10^{-17})\, Y_{eff}\, \pi r_d^2 / N_s$ with $Y_{eff} = \alpha(1-e^{-(n_{layers}/\beta)^{\gamma}})$, fitted to experimental yields for CO, $\mathrm{CO_2}$, and $\mathrm{H_2O}$ ices; the mixed-ice rate is composition-weighted in real time.

What would settle it

Irradiate mixed $\mathrm{H_2O}$-CO-$\mathrm{CO_2}$-$\mathrm{CH_3OH}$ ices with cosmic-ray-like particles at 10 K and measure whether excited methoxy plus formyl actually produces methyl formate with appreciable branching; alternatively, rerun the same model with depth-dependent radiolysis attenuation and only experimentally confirmed suprathermal channels and check whether the factor-of-3 agreement with TMC-1 survives.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that cosmic-ray radiolysis paired with sputtering closes the cold-core COM problem. When a cosmic ray strikes an ice molecule, the molecule enters a short-lived electronically excited state and reacts immediately with a neighbouring species instead of waiting for diffusion, which makes the reaction possible at 10 K. The resulting COMs accumulate in the bulk ice, where radicals are protected from rapid hydrogenation, and later sputtering desorbs them into the gas phase. The paper reports factor-of-3 agreement for the five key COMs ($\mathrm{CH_3OH}$, $\mathrm{HCOOCH_3}$, $\mathrm{CH_3OCH_3}$, $\mathrm{CH_3CHO}$, $\mathrm{C_2H_5OH}$), and shows that without sputtering the molecules stay trapped in the ice, while without both mechanisms most COMs are not formed at all.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that an excited ice molecule reacts with whichever neighbour it happens to touch and forms exactly the products listed in the 343-channel table, and that cosmic-ray radiolysis works uniformly through all ice layers with no depth attenuation; neither part is backed by experiment or theory.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Without sputtering, COMs formed inside the ice mantle cannot reach the gas phase; adding sputtering makes it the dominant desorption channel after about $10^5$ years, accounting for 58-89% of desorption depending on the model.
  • Methyl formate and dimethyl ether are built almost entirely inside the bulk ice by suprathermal reactions, while acetaldehyde is built mostly in the gas phase from sputtered precursors such as $\mathrm{C_2H_5}$ and $\mathrm{C_2H_5OH}$.
  • The new mechanisms widen the epoch over which carbon-chain molecules can form: after carbon is locked into CO, sputtering of $\mathrm{C_3}$ and other precursors from ice keeps hydrocarbons and cyanopolyynes abundant at late times.
  • Changing the elemental C/O ratio has little effect on the fraction of reproduced species in the new models, unlike earlier rate-equation models where C/O changed the fit quality.
  • A test model with 1% reactive desorption added changes mainly methanol, because the other COMs form below the surface where reactive desorption does not act.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the same radiolysis-plus-sputtering mechanism should be testable in other cold cores such as L1544 and L1689B, where the same COMs are observed; the model's age at best fit (about 2-7 x 10^5 years) gives a concrete prediction for how COM abundances should track core age.
  • Beyond the paper, if the 343 suprathermal channels are later found to have different branching ratios, the factor-of-3 claim would likely shift by orders of magnitude, so the network presently functions as a parameterization of unknown ice chemistry rather than a measured mechanism.
  • Beyond the paper, the model's insensitivity to C/O suggests that in cold cores the ice mantle, not the initial gas composition, controls the carbon budget available to COM formation; direct ice observations toward TMC-1 could check whether mantle composition tracks the assumed model layers.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents a 0D multiphase Monte Carlo gas-grain astrochemical model of TMC-1 that adds cosmic-ray-induced radiolysis and sputtering desorption to the authors' earlier Lu et al. (2018) model. Six models (MC1-MC6) are run, differing in the assumed sputtering ice composition (mixed, CO, CO2, H2O) and in whether radiolysis and sputtering are included; a reactive-desorption variant of MC2 is also studied. The manuscript's central claims are (i) that models MC1-MC4 reproduce the observed gas-phase abundances of CH3OH, HCOOCH3, CH3OCH3, CH3CHO, and C2H5OH toward TMC-1 within a factor of 3 at a local best-fitting time, and (ii) that at a global best-fitting time 63 of 94 compared species (67.02%) agree within an order of magnitude for MC2/MC3. The paper also analyzes carbon-chain species and the effect of varying C/O ratios.

Significance. The paper is potentially significant because it applies a genuinely stochastic multiphase treatment to non-thermal COM formation, using experimental sputtering fits and an explicitly expanded suprathermal reaction network. The model description is unusually complete: Tables 3, 5, 7, 8, and 10 document the radiolysis reactions, sputtering parameters, abundance comparisons, and the 343 suprathermal channels; the authors also include a reactive-desorption sensitivity test and comparisons with seven previous models. These strengths make the manuscript a useful reference point for future work on cold-core COM chemistry. However, the central factor-of-3 claim is contradicted by the authors' own Table 7 for two model-species combinations, and the 343 suprathermal reactions that dominate COM production are assumed without experimental or theoretical validation. As it stands, the paper demonstrates that a specific assumed network can be tuned to match TMC-1, but it does not yet establish that the proposed mechanisms are responsible for the observed COM abundances.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.3, Table 7] The statement in §3.3 that 'the simulation results for COMs in our models, MC1 to MC4, all deviated from the observed values by less than a factor of 3' is not supported by Table 7. At the local best-fitting time, MC3 gives C2H5OH = 4.46e-10 versus observed (1.1 ± 0.3)e-10, a ratio of about 4.1 even using the upper 1σ bound of 1.4e-10, and MC4 gives CH3CHO = 9.4e-11 versus observed (3.5 ± 0.2)e-10, a ratio of about 3.7 even against the lower 1σ bound of 3.3e-10. The factor-of-3 claim must be revised, or the definition of 'agreement' and the treatment of observational errors must be stated precisely.
  2. [§2.3 and Appendix A, Table 10] The dominant formation channels for the claimed COM detections are inserted as assumptions. The text states in §3.1.2 that about 99% of JHCOOCH3 is formed through radiative mechanisms, and Table 4 lists the product-forming reactions (e.g., JCH3O* + JHCO → HCOOCH3); §3.1.5 and §3.1.6 show that the main channels for CH3OCH3 and C2H5OH are likewise suprathermal reactions with specified COM products. The 343 reactions in Table 10 are taken to be barrierless and to proceed with equal probability based on neighbor abundance, with no branching ratios, experimental measurements, or theoretical calculations cited, and §2.3 concedes that radiolysis is assumed uniform in all ice layers 'due to limited knowledge.' Since the product COMs are inputs to the network rather than emergent consequences of the model, the reported factor-of-3 agreement is a test of the assumed channels' rates, not a validation of the mechanism. The authors should either supply external constraints for the suprathermal reactions or explicitly reframe the results as an exploration conditional on the network.
  3. [§2.2, §3.3, Table 8] The stochastic Monte Carlo results are presented without error bars or multiple realizations, yet the comparisons use abundance values at single times. Table 8 contains numerous 0.00(0) entries and the text describes 'notably large' abundance fluctuations in MC1 and MC4 (§3.1.3), so run-to-run scatter could plausibly affect the factor-of-3 and 67% statistics. In addition, the global best-fitting time is defined as the time that maximizes the number of matches, so the 67.02% figure is a best-case, in-sample statistic rather than a predictive accuracy measure. At minimum, the authors should report the stochastic uncertainty (e.g., multiple seeds or a Poisson error estimate) and state how the time-selection procedure affects the reported agreement.
  4. [§3.3, Eq. (15)] The local best-fitting time is selected by minimizing D(t) computed from the very five COMs that are then used to claim factor-of-3 agreement. This in-sample optimization inflates the apparent agreement; a fixed epoch (e.g., 1e6 years) or an out-of-sample comparison would be a more meaningful test. The authors should provide the abundance ratios at a common time or quantify the sensitivity of the conclusion to the chosen epoch.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Title and §4] The title contains a typo ('F ormation'), and Section 4 uses 'oxygen-obeying COMs' instead of 'oxygen-bearing COMs'.
  2. [§2.3] The formula for the layer distribution probability is garbled as 'Pji = SU M Kji/P jSU M Kji'; please reformat the equation and define the summation index.
  3. [Figure 7 caption] The caption says 'Model 1 and Model 6' but the figure compares MC2 and MC6; make the model labels consistent.
  4. [Table 8 and Table 9] There are notation inconsistencies, e.g., the CH2NH upper limit is given as '<3.6(-0.9)' and several entries use '0.00(0)' that is not defined; also Table 9 lists Carder et al. twice (rows 25 and 28) with the same reference.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Headline COM agreement is reported at times fitted to the same species, and the 67% success statistic is the optimized objective itself, so the quantitative 'predictions' are partly fit reports rather than independent tests; the reaction-network assumptions are explicit inputs, not circular.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.3 (Eq. 15), Table 7]
    "we defined the local best-fitting time as the moment when D(t) reaches its minimum ... D(t) = 1/Nobs Σ_i |log[n(X)_obs,i] − log[n(X)_mod,i(t)]| ... For the local best-fitting time, we only consider the five observed COMs: HCOOCH3, CH3OCH3, CH3CHO, CH3OH, and C2H5OH."

    The time t is chosen by minimizing D(t) over exactly the five observed COM abundances that are later claimed to agree 'within a factor of 3' at that time (Table 7). The success metric and the selection criterion are therefore the same data set, so the factor-of-3 statement is a property of the optimized fit rather than an independent prediction for those five species. The circularity is partial because only one scalar parameter (the chemical age) is fitted; the model abundances are genuine outputs and the fit could still be poor, but the headline agreement is not an out-of-sample test.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.3, Table 8]
    "we defined the global best-fitting time as the moment when, among the 94 species, the number of simulated species abundances and observed values within one order of magnitude was maximized ... MC2 and MC3 models each had 63 species closely matching the observed values, representing approximately 67.02%."

    The 63/94 (67.02%) statistic is the objective function used to select the global best-fitting time: the time is defined as the one maximizing the number of species within one order of magnitude, and that same maximized count is then reported as evidence of agreement. The reported number is therefore optimal by construction as a fit-quality measure, not an independent agreement statistic. The model outputs and species inventory still carry independent content, so this is partial rather than total circularity.

full rationale

The central physical content of the paper is not circular: the multiphase model, radiolysis rates from Shingledecker et al. (2018), sputtering yields from Dartois et al. (2021), and the explicit suprathermal channel list in Table 10 are all inputs to a simulation, and the simulated abundances are emergent outputs compared with TMC-1 observations. Including a formation channel such as JHCO* + JCH3O -> JHCOOCH3 is an astrochemical assumption, not a self-derivation of the observed abundance from it. The paper's reliance on the authors' prior model (Lu et al. 2018) and Gillespie algorithm (Chang et al. 2017) is also provenance, not a load-bearing self-citation chain: no uniqueness theorem is invoked from those works. The genuine circularity is narrower and limited to the evaluation statistics: the 'within factor 3' COM claim is assessed at a 'local best-fitting time' obtained by minimizing D(t) over those same five COMs (Eq. 15, Section 3.3), and the 67.02% reproduction rate is the value of the objective function used to define the 'global best-fitting time.' Both are fitted quantities presented as agreement, so the quantitative headline is partly a fit report. Additionally, Table 7 itself shows MC3 C2H5OH (4.46e-10 vs observed 1.1e-10, factor ~4.05) and MC4 CH3CHO (9.4e-11 vs observed 3.5e-10, factor ~3.72) outside factor 3; this is an internal consistency problem, not a circularity, but it further weakens the headline claim. Overall, the derivation does not reduce to its inputs by definition, but the reported 'predictions' are partially forced by the time-fitting procedure, giving a score of 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a network of assumed suprathermal reaction channels (Table 10), on the assumption that radiolysis acts uniformly through the ice mantle, on experimental sputtering yields adopted from external work, and on choosing the comparison time to match the observed COM abundances. No new particles or forces are introduced; the excited ice-mantle species are inherited from prior radiolysis literature.

free parameters (3)
  • Best-fitting evolutionary time (local and global) = MC1 4.95e5, MC2 2.93e5, MC3 3.94e5, MC4 6.57e5 yr (local); global 2.42e5, 2.32e5, 2.63e5, 1.72e5 yr
    The agreement 'within a factor of 3' is evaluated at times chosen to minimize D(t) over the five target COMs (Eq. 15, Section 3.3), so the match is partly a fit to the observed abundances.
  • Sputtering yield parameters alpha, beta, gamma = CO 40.1/75.8/0.69; CO2 21.9/56.3/0.60; H2O 3.63/3.25/0.57
    Taken from Dartois et al. 2021 experimental fits; the paper selects among four models with different ice compositions, effectively tuning desorption efficiency.
  • Mixed-ice sputtering weighting in MC1 = abundance-weighted sum of CO, CO2, H2O rates (Eq. 11)
    Ad hoc formula combining single-component sputtering rates by ice fractional abundances; not experimentally validated for mixed ices.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Radiolysis can occur in any ice layer without depth-dependent attenuation
    Section 2.3 states this assumption because ice-thickness effects on radiolysis are unknown.
  • domain assumption Suprathermal species do not diffuse and react immediately with a neighbor chosen with probability proportional to its abundance in that layer
    Section 2.3; central to COM formation in the ice mantle.
  • domain assumption All radiolysis products enter interstitial sites
    Section 2.3, adopted to reduce computational cost.
  • ad hoc to paper The 343 suprathermal reaction channels in Table 10 are correct in products and barrierless
    These channels are the main COM formation routes (Table 4); they are assumed, not measured.
  • ad hoc to paper Mixed-ice sputtering rate is the abundance-weighted sum of CO, CO2 and H2O sputtering rates
    Eq. 11; no experimental data exist for multi-component ice sputtering.
  • standard math Gillespie algorithm and stochastic chemical kinetics correctly simulate the gas-grain network
    Background method from Chang et al. 2017; accepted computational approach.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Modeling Complex Organic Molecules Formation in Cold Cores: Multi-phase Models with Non-thermal Mechanisms." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VXJSJRI7

@misc{pith2026241206397,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Modeling Complex Organic Molecules Formation in Cold Cores: Multi-phase Models with Non-thermal Mechanisms},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VXJSJRI7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.06397}
}
read the original abstract

In recent years, a significant number of oxygen-bearing complex organic molecules (COMs) have been detected in the gas phase of cold dark clouds such as TMC-1. The formation of these COMs cannot be explained by diffusive mechanisms on grains and gas phase reactions. This study investigates the formation of oxygen-bearing COMs in cold dark clouds using multiphase gas-grain models that incorporate cosmic ray-induced non-diffusive radiation chemistry and non-thermal sputtering desorption mechanisms. Additionally, we present the effects of varying elemental C/O ratio and different sputtering rates. We utilized an accelerated Gillespie algorithm, based on the regular Gillespie algorithm. The results of our models for dimethyl ether (CH3OCH3), methyl formate (HCOOCH3), acetaldehyde (CH3CHO), ethanol (C2H5OH), and methanol (CH3OH) show reasonable agreement with observations toward TMC-1, within a factor of 3. Out of the 94 species compared with observations, 63 show agreement within 1 order of magnitude, accounting for 67.02%. Overall inclusion of non-thermal mechanisms in multi-phase models shows notable improvement of modeling on oxygen-bearing COMs in the interstellar medium.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.06397 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The schematic diagram depicts the multiphase model. The yellow area represents the gas phase. The blue circles represent the active layer molecules, capable of freely diffusing and undergoing reactions. The green circles depict the normal species within the frozen ice mantle, which are unable to diffuse. The red circles represent the interstitial species, capable of diffusion and reacting with both interstitial and … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Abundance Ratios of Gas Species Relative to H in Different Models. here, Ni represents the count of species i in the ice, calculated in a real-time manner. kscr(i) represents the theoretically fitted experimental sputtering rate for a single ice composition i, which could be computed using formula 9. Model 2 (MC2), Model 3 (MC3), and Model 4 (MC4) all incorporated radiolysis and sputtering mechanisms. In Model 2, th… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Abundance Ratios of Dust Species Relative to H in Different Models. recombination reactions in the gas phase, but it is rapidly dissociated. The MC5 model can produce C2H5OH in the ice mantles. Our model can trap species within the ice mantle, where photons penetrate the partially active ice layers and photodissociate bulk ice species, producing radicals. Species in the ice mantle can become excited through radiativ… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left panel: Dust surface and ice mantle sputtering rate coefficients versus time for different models. Right panel (MC1 model): The abundances of H2O, CO, and CO2 molecules change with time. The left panel of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The distribution of Fempty in different ice layers of the MC2 and MC6 models at 106 years. respectively. Above the 250th layer, Fempty begins to decrease, with proportions falling below 15%. This decline is due to the relatively late formation of the topmost ice layers…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Abundance Ratios of Gas Species Relative to H in MC2 and MC2 reacDes Models. desorption into the gas phase. Since the efficiency of reactive desorption is higher than that of photodesorption, the abundance of CH3OH in the MC2 reacDes model is higher than that in the MC…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Abundance Ratios of Gas Carbon Chain Species Relative to H in Model 1 and Model 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Cumulative Probability of Different Desorption Mechanisms in Various Models. Simple sulfur-bearing carbon chains, such as C2S and C3S, were also efficiently synthesized, consistent with obser￾vations occurring in approximately 105 years. Our simulation results indicate…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The Fraction of Reproduced Species Over Time in Different Models. less available for forming other species. Additionally, some carbon can adsorb onto dust grains. Thus, increasing the C/O ratio allows the excess carbon to participate in reactions, leading to the format…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The fraction of reproduced species over time in different C/O ratios and models. This article primarily investigates the formation mechanisms of oxygen-obeying COMs within the cold cloud core TMC-1. We employ a multiphase astrochemical model developed by us, incorpora…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Abundance Ratios of Gas Carbon Chain Species Relative to H in MC2 model and MC2 reacDes model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Variation of D(t) over time across different models. REFERENCES Abplanalp, M. J., Gozem, S., Krylov, A. I., et al. 2016, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 113, 7727, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1604426113 Ag´undez, M., Cabezas, C., Marcelino, N., et al. 2022, A&A,…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Complex Organic Molecules towards the central molecular zone of NGC 253

    astro-ph.GA 2025-04 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Complex organic molecules in the center of NGC 253 emit from two gas components and most likely trace large-scale shocks, with nitrogen-bearing species depleted toward GMC 7.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

107 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    J., Gozem, S., Krylov, A

    Abplanalp, M. J., Gozem, S., Krylov, A. I., et al. 2016, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 113, 7727, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1604426113 Ag´ undez, M., Cabezas, C., Marcelino, N., et al. 2022, A&A, 659, L9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243396 Ag´ undez, M., Cabezas, C., Tercero, B., et al. 2021a, A&A, 647, L10, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140553 Ag´ un...

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.1604426113 2016

  2. [2]

    2019, A&A, 625, A147, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935164 Ag´ undez, M., Marcelino, N., Tercero, B., et al

    Tafalla, M. 2019, A&A, 625, A147, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935164 Ag´ undez, M., Marcelino, N., Tercero, B., et al. 2021b, A&A, 649, L4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140978 Ag´ undez, M., Marcelino, N., Tercero, B., Jim´ enez-Serra, I., & Cernicharo, J. 2023a, A&A, 677, A106, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347077 Ag´ undez, M., & Wakelam, V. 2013, Chemical Revie...

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935164 2019

  3. [3]

    Andersson, S., & van Dishoeck, E. F. 2008, A&A, 491, 907, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200810374 Arslan, ¨O., Hocuk, S., Caselli, P., & K¨ u¸ c¨ uk,˙I. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 2050, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3196

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200810374 2008

  4. [4]

    2015, in EAS Publications

    Bacmann, A., & Faure, A. 2015, in EAS Publications

    2015

  5. [5]

    75-76, EAS Publications Series, 325–328, doi: 10.1051/eas/1575065

    Series, Vol. 75-76, EAS Publications Series, 325–328, doi: 10.1051/eas/1575065

    arXiv

  6. [6]

    2016, A&A, 587, A130, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526198

    Bacmann, A., & Faure, A. 2016, A&A, 587, A130, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526198

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201526198 2016

  7. [7]

    2012, A&A, 541, L12, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219207

    Ceccarelli, C. 2012, A&A, 541, L12, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219207

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201219207 2012

  8. [8]

    2015, MNRAS, 449, L16, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slv009

    Balucani, N., Ceccarelli, C., & Taquet, V. 2015, MNRAS, 449, L16, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slv009

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slv009 2015

Show all 107 references
  1. [9]

    T., M¨ uller, H

    Belloche, A., Garrod, R. T., M¨ uller, H. S. P., & Menten, K. M. 2014, Science, 345, 1584, doi: 10.1126/science.1256678

    2014 doi

  2. [10]

    2013, Astron

    Comito, C. 2013, Astron. Astrophys., 559, A47, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321096

    2013 doi

  3. [11]

    J., & Kaiser, R

    Bergantini, A., G´ obi, S., Abplanalp, M. J., & Kaiser, R. I. 2018, ApJ, 852, 70, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9ce2 40 Yang Lu et al

    2018 doi

  4. [12]

    B., ¨Oberg, K

    Bergner, J. B., ¨Oberg, K. I., & Rajappan, M. 2017, ApJ, 845, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7d09

    2017 doi

  5. [13]

    2016, ApJL, 817, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/817/2/L12

    Bertin, M., Romanzin, C., Doronin, M., et al. 2016, ApJL, 817, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/817/2/L12

    2016 doi

  6. [14]

    2013, A&A Rv, 21, 70, doi: 10.1007/s00159-013-0070-7

    Blasi, P. 2013, A&A Rv, 21, 70, doi: 10.1007/s00159-013-0070-7

    2013 doi

  7. [15]

    2004, Astrophys

    Bottinelli, S., Ceccarelli, C., Lefloch, B., et al. 2004, Astrophys. J., 615, 354, doi: 10.1086/423952

    2004 doi

  8. [16]

    M., Herbst, E., Kalenskii, S

    Burkhardt, A. M., Herbst, E., Kalenskii, S. V., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 5068, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2972

    2018 doi

  9. [17]

    2022a, A&A, 659, L8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142972

    Cabezas, C., Ag´ undez, M., Marcelino, N., et al. 2022a, A&A, 659, L8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142972

    doi

  10. [18]

    2021a, A&A, 646, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202040210

    Cabezas, C., Endo, Y., Roueff, E., et al. 2021a, A&A, 646, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202040210

    doi

  11. [19]

    2021b, A&A, 650, L15, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141371

    Cabezas, C., Roueff, E., Tercero, B., et al. 2021b, A&A, 650, L15, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141371

    doi

  12. [20]

    2021c, A&A, 650, L9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141274

    Cabezas, C., Tercero, B., Ag´ undez, M., et al. 2021c, A&A, 650, L9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141274

    doi

  13. [21]

    2022b, A&A, 663, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244063

    Cabezas, C., Ag´ undez, M., Fuentetaja, R., et al. 2022b, A&A, 663, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244063

    doi

  14. [22]

    2023, Laboratory and astronomical discovery of the cyanovinyl radical H2CCCN

    Cabezas, C., Tang, J., Ag´ undez, M., et al. 2023, Laboratory and astronomical discovery of the cyanovinyl radical H2CCCN. https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.09127

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    T., Paulive, A., & Herbst, E

    Carder, J. T., Paulive, A., & Herbst, E. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 4622, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3646

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    2021a, A&A, 656, L21, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142634

    Cernicharo, J., Ag´ undez, M., Cabezas, C., et al. 2021a, A&A, 656, L21, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142634

    doi

  17. [25]

    I., et al

    Cernicharo, J., Ag´ undez, M., Kaiser, R. I., et al. 2021b, A&A, 652, L9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141660

    doi

  18. [26]

    2021c, A&A, 650, L14, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141297 —

    Cernicharo, J., Cabezas, C., Endo, Y., et al. 2021c, A&A, 650, L14, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141297 —. 2021d, A&A, 646, L3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202040013

    doi

  19. [27]

    1987, A&A, 176, 299

    Cernicharo, J., & Guelin, M. 1987, A&A, 176, 299

    1987

  20. [28]

    2020a, A&A, 642, L8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039274 —

    Cernicharo, J., Marcelino, N., Ag´ undez, M., et al. 2020a, A&A, 642, L8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039274 —. 2020b, A&A, 642, L17, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039351

    doi

  21. [29]

    2012, ApJL, 759, L43, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/759/2/L43

    Cernicharo, J., Marcelino, N., Roueff, E., et al. 2012, ApJL, 759, L43, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/759/2/L43

    2012 doi

  22. [30]

    2018, ApJL, 853, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaa83a

    Cernicharo, J., Lefloch, B., Ag´ undez, M., et al. 2018, ApJL, 853, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaa83a

    2018 doi

  23. [31]

    2021e, A&A, 648, L3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140642

    Cernicharo, J., Cabezas, C., Ag´ undez, M., et al. 2021e, A&A, 648, L3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140642

    doi

  24. [32]

    2021f, A&A, 647, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140434

    Cernicharo, J., Ag´ undez, M., Cabezas, C., et al. 2021f, A&A, 647, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140434

    doi

  25. [33]

    2021g, A&A, 646, L7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202040076

    Cernicharo, J., Cabezas, C., Bailleux, S., et al. 2021g, A&A, 646, L7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202040076

    doi

  26. [34]

    2022a, A&A, 663, L9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244399

    Cernicharo, J., Fuentetaja, R., Ag´ undez, M., et al. 2022a, A&A, 663, L9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244399

    doi

  27. [35]

    2022b, A&A, 657, L16, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142992

    Cernicharo, J., Ag´ undez, M., Cabezas, C., et al. 2022b, A&A, 657, L16, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142992

    doi

  28. [36]

    2012, ApJ, 759, 147, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/759/2/147 —

    Chang, Q., & Herbst, E. 2012, ApJ, 759, 147, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/759/2/147 —. 2014, ApJ, 787, 135, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/787/2/135 —. 2016, ApJ, 819, 145, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/819/2/145

    2012 doi

  29. [37]

    2017, ApJ, 851, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa99d9

    Chang, Q., Lu, Y., & Quan, D. 2017, ApJ, 851, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa99d9

    2017 doi

  30. [38]

    B., Tielens, A

    Charnley, S. B., Tielens, A. G. G. M., & Millar, T. J. 1992, ApJL, 399, L71, doi: 10.1086/186609

    1992 doi

  31. [39]

    2022a, MNRAS, 516, 4627, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2566

    Chen, L.-F., Chang, Q., Wang, Y., & Li, D. 2022a, MNRAS, 516, 4627, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2566

    doi

  32. [40]

    2022b, ApJ, 928, 175, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5a45

    Chen, L.-F., Li, D., Quan, D., et al. 2022b, ApJ, 928, 175, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5a45

    doi

  33. [41]

    L., & Evans, Neal J., I

    Choi, Y., Lee, J.-E., Bourke, T. L., & Evans, Neal J., I. 2017, ApJS, 229, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa69ba

    2017 doi

  34. [42]

    R., Xue, C., Changala, P

    Cooke, I. R., Xue, C., Changala, P. B., et al. 2023, ApJ, 948, 133, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc584

    2023 doi

  35. [43]

    A., Mart ´ ın-Dom´ enech, R., Mu˜ noz Caro, G

    Cruz-Diaz, G. A., Mart ´ ın-Dom´ enech, R., Mu˜ noz Caro, G. M., & Chen, Y. J. 2016, A&A, 592, A68, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526761

    2016 doi

  36. [44]

    C., Stone, E

    Cummings, A. C., Stone, E. C., Heikkila, B. C., et al. 2016, ApJ, 831, 18, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/831/1/18

    2016 doi

  37. [45]

    M., van Dishoeck, E

    Cuppen, H. M., van Dishoeck, E. F., Herbst, E., & Tielens, A. G. G. M. 2009, A&A, 508, 275, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913119

    2009 doi

  38. [46]

    2020, A&A, 634, A103, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936934

    Dartois, E., Chabot, M., Bacmann, A., et al. 2020, A&A, 634, A103, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936934

    2020 doi

  39. [47]

    2018, A&A, 618, A173, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833277 —

    Dartois, E., Chabot, M., Id Barkach, T., et al. 2018, A&A, 618, A173, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833277 —. 2019, A&A, 627, A55, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834787 —. 2021, A&A, 647, A177, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039535

    2018 doi

  40. [48]

    2015, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B, 365, 472, doi: 10.1016/j.nimb.2015.08.053

    Dartois, E., Aug´ e, B., Rothard, H., et al. 2015, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B, 365, 472, doi: 10.1016/j.nimb.2015.08.053

    2015 doi

  41. [49]

    Dartois, E., Chabot, M., da Costa, C. A. P., et al. 2023, A&A, 671, A156, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245383

    2023 doi

  42. [50]

    2013, Scientific Reports, 3, 1338, doi: 10.1038/srep01338

    Dulieu, F., Congiu, E., Noble, J., et al. 2013, Scientific Reports, 3, 1338, doi: 10.1038/srep01338

    2013 doi

  43. [51]

    2022a, A&A, 667, L4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245018

    Fuentetaja, R., Ag´ undez, M., Cabezas, C., et al. 2022a, A&A, 667, L4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245018

    doi

  44. [52]

    2022b, A&A, 663, L3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243857

    Fuentetaja, R., Cabezas, C., Ag´ undez, M., et al. 2022b, A&A, 663, L3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243857

    doi

  45. [53]

    2024, ApJ, 974, 115, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6b20

    Furuya, K. 2024, ApJ, 974, 115, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6b20

    2024 doi

  46. [54]

    T., & Herbst, E

    Garrod, R. T., & Herbst, E. 2006, Astron. Astrophys., 457, 927, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20065560 Modeling COMs Formation in cold core: Multi-phase Models with Non-thermal Mechanisms41

    2006 doi

  47. [55]

    T., Wakelam, V., & Herbst, E

    Garrod, R. T., Wakelam, V., & Herbst, E. 2007a, A&A, 467, 1103, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066704 —. 2007b, A&A, 467, 1103, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066704

    doi

  48. [56]

    T., Weaver, S

    Garrod, R. T., Weaver, S. L. W., & Herbst, E. 2008, Astrophys. J., 682, 283, doi: 10.1086/588035

    2008 doi

  49. [57]

    2020, MNRAS, 497, 3306, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2098

    Ge, J., Mardones, D., Inostroza, N., & Peng, Y. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 3306, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2098

    2020 doi

  50. [58]

    2016, ApJS, 225, 25, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/225/2/25

    Gratier, P., Majumdar, L., Ohishi, M., et al. 2016, ApJS, 225, 25, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/225/2/25

    2016 doi

  51. [59]

    I., Herbst, E., & Leung, C

    Hasegawa, T. I., Herbst, E., & Leung, C. M. 1992, ApJS, 82, 167, doi: 10.1086/191713

    1992 doi

  52. [60]

    Herbst, E., & van Dishoeck, E. F. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 427, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101654

    2009 doi

  53. [61]

    2011, A&A, 530, A61, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201016328

    Hincelin, U., Wakelam, V., Hersant, F., et al. 2011, A&A, 530, A61, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201016328

    2011 doi

  54. [62]

    2018, A&A, 615, A20, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732486

    Iqbal, W., & Wakelam, V. 2018, A&A, 615, A20, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732486

    2018 doi

  55. [63]

    F., Wilson, M

    Jenniskens, P., Blake, D. F., Wilson, M. A., & Pohorille, A. 1995, ApJ, 455, 389, doi: 10.1086/176585 Jim´ enez-Serra, I., Vasyunin, A. I., Spezzano, S., et al. 2021, ApJ, 917, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac024c Jim´ enez-Serra, I., Vasyunin, A. I., Caselli, P., et al. 2016, Ap...

    1995 doi

  56. [64]

    Jin, M., & Garrod, R. T. 2020, ApJS, 249, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab9ec8 Jørgensen, J. K., Favre, C., Bisschop, S. E., et al. 2012, Astrophys. J. Lett., 757, L4, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/757/1/L4

    2020 doi

  57. [65]

    J., Zhang, Q., ¨Oberg, K

    Law, C. J., Zhang, Q., ¨Oberg, K. I., et al. 2021, ApJ, 909, 214, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abdeb8

    2021 doi

  58. [66]

    2016, MNRAS, 456, 4101, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2866

    Loison, J.-C., Ag´ undez, M., Marcelino, N., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 4101, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2866

    2016 doi

  59. [67]

    2017, MNRAS, 470, 4075, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1265

    Loison, J.-C., Ag´ undez, M., Wakelam, V., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 4075, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1265

    2017 doi

  60. [68]

    2018, ApJ, 869, 165, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaeed8

    Lu, Y., Chang, Q., & Aikawa, Y. 2018, ApJ, 869, 165, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaeed8

    2018 doi

  61. [69]

    M., Wenger, T

    Maffucci, D. M., Wenger, T. V., Le Gal, R., & Herbst, E. 2018, ApJ, 868, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae70c

    2018 doi

  62. [70]

    2017, MNRAS, 466, 4470, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3360

    Majumdar, L., Gratier, P., Ruaud, M., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 4470, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3360

    2017 doi

  63. [71]

    2020, A&A, 643, L6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039251

    Marcelino, N., Ag´ undez, M., Tercero, B., et al. 2020, A&A, 643, L6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039251

    2020 doi

  64. [72]

    J., et al

    McElroy, D., Walsh, C., Markwick, A. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 550, A36, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220465

    2013 doi

  65. [73]

    A., Burkhardt, A

    McGuire, B. A., Burkhardt, A. M., Loomis, R. A., et al. 2020, ApJL, 900, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aba632

    2020 doi

  66. [74]

    M., Ag´ undez, M., Cernicharo, J., & Kaiser, R

    Mebel, A. M., Ag´ undez, M., Cernicharo, J., & Kaiser, R. I. 2023, ApJL, 945, L40, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acbf41 Mej ´ ıa, C., Bender, M., Severin, D., et al. 2015, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B, 365, 477, doi: 10.1016/j.nimb.2015.09.039

    2023 doi

  67. [75]

    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, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346908

    2024 doi

  68. [76]

    2016, A&A, 585, A24, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525981

    Minissale, M., Dulieu, F., Cazaux, S., & Hocuk, S. 2016, A&A, 585, A24, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525981

    2016 doi

  69. [77]

    2024, A&A, 688, A150, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449604 ¨Oberg, K

    Molpeceres, G., Furuya, K., & Aikawa, Y. 2024, A&A, 688, A150, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449604 ¨Oberg, K. I., Bottinelli, S., Jørgensen, J. K., & van

    2024 doi

  70. [78]

    Dishoeck, E. F. 2010, ApJ, 716, 825, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/716/1/825 ¨Oberg, K. I., Fuchs, G. W., Awad, Z., et al. 2007, ApJL, 662, L23, doi: 10.1086/519281

    2010 doi

  71. [79]

    T., & Herbst, E

    Paulive, A., Carder, J. T., & Herbst, E. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 4097, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2507

    2022 doi

  72. [80]

    N., & Herbst, E

    Paulive, A., Shingledecker, C. N., & Herbst, E. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 3414, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3458

    2021 doi

  73. [81]

    N., Burkhardt, A

    Remijan, A., Scolati, H. N., Burkhardt, A. M., et al. 2023, ApJL, 944, L45, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acb648

    2023 doi

  74. [82]

    2002, A&A, 395, 233, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20021280

    Roberts, H., & Herbst, E. 2002, A&A, 395, 233, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20021280

    2002 doi

  75. [83]

    C., Hickson, K

    Ruaud, M., Loison, J. C., Hickson, K. M., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 4004, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2709

    2015 doi

  76. [84]

    2016, MNRAS, 459, 3756, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw887

    Ruaud, M., Wakelam, V., & Hersant, F. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 3756, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw887

    2016 doi

  77. [85]

    2010, A&A, 522, A42, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015149

    Semenov, D., Hersant, F., Wakelam, V., et al. 2010, A&A, 522, A42, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015149

    2010 doi

  78. [86]

    Dishoeck, E. F. 2004, A&A, 415, 203, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031669

    2004 doi

  79. [87]

    N., & Herbst, E

    Shingledecker, C. N., & Herbst, E. 2018, Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics (Incorporating Faraday Transactions), 20, 5359, doi: 10.1039/C7CP05901A

    2018 doi

  80. [88]

    N., Tennis, J., Le Gal, R., & Herbst, E

    Shingledecker, C. N., Tennis, J., Le Gal, R., & Herbst, E. 2018, ApJ, 861, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac5ee

    2018 doi

  81. [89]

    A., Lee, K

    Siebert, M. A., Lee, K. L. K., Remijan, A. J., et al. 2022, ApJ, 924, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3238

    2022 doi

  82. [90]

    Silva, W. G. D. P., Cernicharo, J., Schlemmer, S., et al. 2023, A&A, 676, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347174

    2023 doi

  83. [91]

    Smith, I. W. M., Herbst, E., & Chang, Q. 2004, MNRAS, 350, 323, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07656.x

    2004

  84. [92]

    2018, ApJS, 237, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aac8db

    Suzuki, T., Ohishi, M., Saito, M., et al. 2018, ApJS, 237, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aac8db

    2018 doi

  85. [93]

    1998, A&A, 329, 1156

    Takano, S., Masuda, A., Hirahara, Y., et al. 1998, A&A, 329, 1156

    1998

  86. [94]

    Taniguchi, K., Gorai, P., & Tan, J. C. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2303.15769, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2303.15769 42 Yang Lu et al

    2023 doi arXiv

  87. [95]

    2016, ApJ, 817, 147, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/817/2/147

    Taniguchi, K., Ozeki, H., Saito, M., et al. 2016, ApJ, 817, 147, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/817/2/147

    2016 doi

  88. [96]

    S., Charnley, S

    Taquet, V., Wirstr¨ om, E. S., Charnley, S. B., et al. 2017, A&A, 607, A20, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201630023 van Gelder, M. L., Tabone, B., Tychoniec, L., et al. 2020, A&A, 639, A87, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037758

    2017 doi

  89. [97]

    2014, ApJL, 795, L2, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/795/1/L2

    Vastel, C., Ceccarelli, C., Lefloch, B., & Bachiller, R. 2014, ApJL, 795, L2, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/795/1/L2

    2014 doi

  90. [98]

    I., Caselli, P., Dulieu, F., & Jim´ enez-Serra, I

    Vasyunin, A. I., Caselli, P., Dulieu, F., & Jim´ enez-Serra, I. 2017, ApJ, 842, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa72ec

    2017 doi

  91. [99]

    I., Semenov, D

    Vasyunin, A. I., Semenov, D. A., Wiebe, D. S., & Henning, T. 2009, ApJ, 691, 1459, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/691/2/1459

    2009 doi

  92. [100]

    Vidal, T. H. G., Loison, J.-C., Jaziri, A. Y., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 435, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx828

    2017 doi

  93. [101]

    2021, A&A, 652, A63, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039855

    Wakelam, V., Dartois, E., Chabot, M., et al. 2021, A&A, 652, A63, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039855

    2021 doi

  94. [102]

    2010, A&A, 517, A21, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913856

    Wakelam, V., Herbst, E., Le Bourlot, J., et al. 2010, A&A, 517, A21, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913856

    2010 doi

  95. [103]

    2006, A&A, 451, 551, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20054682

    Wakelam, V., Herbst, E., & Selsis, F. 2006, A&A, 451, 551, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20054682

    2006 doi

  96. [104]

    C., Mereau, R., & Ruaud, M

    Wakelam, V., Loison, J. C., Mereau, R., & Ruaud, M. 2017, Molecular Astrophysics, 6, 22, doi: 10.1016/j.molap.2017.01.002

    2017 doi

  97. [105]

    Walsh, C., Harada, N., Herbst, E., & Millar, T. J. 2009, ApJ, 700, 752, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/700/1/752

    2009 doi

  98. [106]

    2019, A&A, 622, A185, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834276

    Wang, Y., Chang, Q., & Wang, H. 2019, A&A, 622, A185, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834276

    2019 doi

  99. [107]

    2021, A&A, 648, A72, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140411

    Wang, Y., Du, F., Semenov, D., Wang, H., & Li, J. 2021, A&A, 648, A72, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140411

    2021 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.