Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 81 references

ALMA observations of CO isotopologues towards six obscured post-AGB stars

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Six heavily obscured post-AGB stars all had initial masses below 2 solar masses, inferred from their 17O/18O isotope ratios, and the four with known spectral types evolved faster than stellar models predict.

desk verdict Solid ALMA pilot study with real new data and five fresh 17O/18O ratios, but the all-six <2 M⊙ claim is softer than the abstract: it holds only under solar-metallicity assumptions the authors themselves flag. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.04492 v1 pith:Q2MCQJML submitted 2025-01-08 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA

T. Khouri , D. Tafoya , W. H. T. Vlemmings , H. Olofsson , C. Sánchez Contreras , J. Alcolea , J. F. Gómez , L. Velilla-Prieto
show 8 more authors
R. Sahai M. Santander-García V. Bujarrabal A. Karakas M. Saberi I. Gallardo Cava H. Imai A. F. Pérez-Sánchez
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GA
keywords post-AGBstarsasymptoticgiantbranchoxygenisotopicratios17O/18OCOisotopologuescircumstellarenvelopesinitialstellarmasssuper-windloss
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

Using ALMA observations of the J=2-1 lines of 13CO, C17O, and C18O toward six heavily dust-obscured post-AGB stars, this paper tries to establish that all six stars had initial masses below 2 solar masses, based on their 17O/18O isotopic ratios. The inferred masses, between about 1.15 and 1.8 solar masses, contradict earlier literature suggestions that some of these objects were more massive. The paper also argues that the stars shed their envelopes in a short, intense phase: kinematic ages of the C18O emission are under about 1500 years and recent mass-loss rates are above 1e-4 solar masses per year. Finally, it claims that the four sources with known spectral types reached their current hot effective temperatures faster than single-star evolutionary models predict. If right, these results tie the most obscured post-AGB objects to low-mass progenitors and to binary or fast-tracked evolution rather than to high-mass stars.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing diagnostic is the 17O/18O oxygen isotope ratio, obtained from the flux ratio of the C17O and C18O J=2-1 lines under the assumptions of optically thin emission and a common excitation temperature; because the ratio is set mainly by first dredge-up, it correlates with initial mass in published stellar evolution models. The second mechanism is the kinematic age of the C18O emission region, computed as the radius of the 3-sigma contour divided by the line's expansion velocity, which the paper treats as an upper limit on the time since the high-mass-loss phase ended. Line fluxes and emission sizes are measured from ALMA maps, and circumstellar masses follow from the C18O flux, assumed abundance, and distance.

What would settle it

Measure the 17O/18O ratio in an obscured post-AGB star whose initial mass is known independently, for example from a binary orbit or a parallax-based luminosity, and check whether the adopted stellar evolution models recover that mass; a systematic offset would falsify the calibration.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the 17O/18O ratio measured in the ejected gas of six obscured post-AGB stars pins their initial masses to a narrow low range, roughly 1.15 to 1.8 solar masses, with the carbon star HD 187885 near 1.15 solar masses. This is derived by equating the C17O/C18O J=2-1 flux ratio with the oxygen isotope abundance ratio under an assumption of optically thin emission, then comparing with stellar evolution model grids. The paper further reports circumstellar gas masses of about 0.1 to 0.42 solar masses, kinematic ages of 600 to 1500 years, and recent mass-loss rates of about 1e-4 solar masses per year or higher, all pointing to a recent, violent mass-ejection event. Five of the six sources show high-velocity, point-symmetric molecular outflows, with Hen 3-1475 displaying molecular gas interleaved with the ionized jet seen in optical images. The paper concludes that the stars with known spectral types have evolved through the post-AGB phase faster than evolutionary models allow.

Load-bearing premise

The central result stands on the assumption that the oxygen isotope ratios predicted by stellar evolution models for a given initial mass and metal content match what these stars actually started with.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the inferred masses are correct, none of these obscured post-AGB stars had a high-mass progenitor, so earlier high-mass interpretations for sources like Hen 3-1475 and M1-92 are not needed.
  • Initial masses near 1.7 to 1.8 solar masses for the two oxygen-rich stars, which are in the range where models predict carbon enrichment, imply their envelopes were removed before carbon-rich chemistry developed, consistent with interaction with a companion.
  • Mass-loss rates above 1e-4 solar masses per year are about ten times higher than standard prescriptions for 1 to 2 solar mass AGB stars, supporting a short super-wind phase at the end of the AGB.
  • Kinematic ages below about 1500 years mean the observed dense envelopes were ejected essentially at the AGB-to-post-AGB transition, so the high-mass-loss phase and the onset of the post-AGB overlap.
  • The faster-than-predicted evolution of the central stars, if confirmed, shortens the expected time between the AGB tip and the appearance of a hot central star in planetary nebulae.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An editorially drawn consequence is that the fast evolutionary timescales, if they hold for a larger sample, would push planetary nebula formation ages downward and make the common-envelope binary channel look more important than the roughly 20 percent expected binarity among AGB progenitors.
  • The paper leaves implicit that the five sources with high-velocity point-symmetric outflows are the best targets to search for close companions; a systematic binary search around these objects would directly test the binary-interaction interpretation.
  • A testable extension would be to measure 17O/18O in additional obscured post-AGB stars selected the same way, to see whether the narrow mass range found here persists or was an artifact of the small sample.
  • Because the mass calibration uses model initial isotope abundances, comparing the derived initial masses with independent dynamical masses of any of these systems would separate model uncertainty from measurement uncertainty.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. This paper reports ALMA Band 6 observations of the J=2-1 lines of 13CO, C17O, and C18O, together with 1.3 mm continuum, toward six obscured post-AGB stars: GLMP 950, GLMP 953, AFGL 5385, HD 187885, Hen 3-1475, and M1-92. The authors measure line fluxes and emission sizes, derive 17O/18O isotopic ratios from the C17O/C18O line flux ratio, estimate circumstellar gas masses, kinematic ages, and recent mass-loss rates from the C18O emission, and infer initial masses by mapping the isotopic ratios onto the MONASH and FRUITY stellar evolution grids. Their main conclusions are that all six sources have initial masses below about 2 solar masses, contrary to earlier suggestions of higher masses for some sources; that five of the six sources show high-velocity point-symmetric molecular outflows; and that the four sources with known spectral types appear to have evolved through the post-AGB phase faster than single-star evolutionary models predict. The paper also highlights the new detection of very high velocity molecular gas in Hen 3-1475 that is interleaved with the optical ionized outflow.

Significance. If the initial-mass interpretation holds, the paper would significantly revise the picture of obscured post-AGB stars, connecting them to lower-mass progenitors and to binary-interaction or superwind scenarios rather than to massive AGB evolution. The observational material is valuable: high-quality ALMA detections of rare isotopologues toward six heavily obscured sources, including the first molecular detection of the very fast outflow in Hen 3-1475 at velocities above 200 km/s. The line-ratio to isotope-ratio conversion is clearly documented and is shown to be nearly independent of the assumed excitation temperature, and the use of two independent stellar evolution model grids is a positive feature. However, the central mass claim depends on adopted metallicities and on a model relation that the authors themselves note is not yet observationally validated; these dependencies need to be quantified before the headline conclusion can be accepted at face value.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Section 6.1.2] The unconditional claim that all six stars have initial masses below 2 solar masses is not uniquely determined by the data. The masses in Table 4 are derived assuming solar metallicity for five sources and Z=0.0035 for HD 187885, but Section 6.1.2 explicitly concedes that Hen 3-1475 and M1-92 could instead have super-solar metallicity and initial masses of 2.0-2.4 solar masses. Since metallicities are not measured for these objects, the <2 solar mass conclusion is a model-dependent statement, not a direct observational result. I request either a quantitative sensitivity analysis showing how the inferred masses change across a plausible range of metallicities and initial oxygen isotopic ratios, or revised wording that restricts the claim to the adopted composition assumption.
  2. [Section 6.1.2 and Table 4] The mapping from 17O/18O to initial mass relies on evolutionary model predictions whose initial-mass dependence has not been observationally validated; the authors cite Abia et al. (2017) on this point. Table 4 quotes MKL16 and MFRUITY initial masses but does not include systematic uncertainties from model physics, assumed initial oxygen isotopic ratios, or metallicity. This matters because GLMP 950, GLMP 953, and M1-92 have inferred masses of 1.7-1.8 solar masses, leaving only about 0.2 solar masses of headroom above the 2 solar mass boundary. A moderate shift in the model relation or in the assumed initial 17O/18O could move several sources across the boundary, so the paper should provide an explicit error budget or label the model-inferred masses as point estimates under stated assumptions.
  3. [Section 6.1.3] The argument that previously proposed distances to Hen 3-1475 are unrealistic inherits the same model dependence as the initial-mass inference. The dmax value of 4.5 kpc in Table 4 is computed from the luminosity limit based on the solar-metallicity initial mass; under the alternative super-solar metallicity solution with an initial mass of 2.0-2.4 solar masses, the allowed maximum distance would be larger. The statement in Section 6.1.3 that distances of 8.3 kpc are not realistic should therefore be explicitly conditioned on the assumed composition and on the model-inferred mass.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] The manuscript contains several typographical and formatting errors, including 'the the asymptotic giant branch' in Section 1, 'Nonetheles' in Section 1, 'di fferent' in multiple places, and 'Bof fin' in the references; these should be corrected during editing.
  2. [Table 4] The column headers MKL16_init and MFRUITY_init are difficult to read in plain text; please use proper subscripts and define the notation in the table caption, including units for the initial masses.
  3. [Section 5.1] The equation for the 17O/18O ratio should state explicitly that the line fluxes must be measured over the same aperture and that the numerical factor 0.95 applies specifically to the J=2-1 transition and to the assumed optically thin regime, since the text otherwise leaves the exact conditions of validity implicit.
  4. [Figure 3] The right-hand panel labeled as a single-beam spectrum should state the beam size and the extraction position in the caption, because the reader cannot otherwise assess how the signal-to-noise was maximized or whether the high-velocity wing is spatially resolved.
  5. [Section 6.2] The discussion of 13CO abundances would benefit from a single explicit definition of f_13CO as the abundance relative to hydrogen nuclei, since the text sometimes refers to 'total number density of hydrogen atoms' and sometimes to 'hydrogen nuclei', which can be confusing.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the 17O/18O ratios are measured from line fluxes and mapped through external stellar model grids, while the fast-evolution claim is compared against independent model timescales.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is not circular. The 17O/18O ratios are obtained from the measured C17O/C18O J=2-1 flux ratios via the explicit conversion in Section 5.1, including an excitation-temperature correction; the ratios are not fitted to the conclusions. Initial masses are read off the public MONASH and FRUITY stellar model grids (Karakas & Lugaro 2016; Cristallo et al. 2015), which do not take the observed fluxes of these six stars as inputs; the agreement between the two independent grids corroborates the mapping rather than defining it. Circumstellar masses and recent mass-loss rates follow from Eq. (1), the measured C18O fluxes, adopted distances, and stated abundance and Texc assumptions; the kinematic ages are size-over-velocity ratios. The 'evolved faster than expected' claim is a comparison of these measured kinematic ages, used as upper limits on the post-AGB duration, with post-AGB timescales taken from Miller Bertolami (2016) and Vassiliadis & Wood (1994), i.e., external model predictions. No equation in the paper imposes the low-mass or fast-evolution result by construction. Self-citations such as Khouri et al. (2021) and Alcolea et al. (2022) are contextual or provide an independent earlier ratio for M1-92, and the MONASH-based abundance/mass inputs are independently supported by FRUITY, so they are not load-bearing. The acknowledged assumptions of solar metallicity and solar initial oxygen isotopic ratios for five sources are model-validity and systematic-uncertainty concerns, not circular reductions of the measured ratios to the inferred masses.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. It relies on standard CO isotopologue observations and published stellar evolution models. The main external inputs are the adopted excitation temperature, the assumed C18O abundance, the distance estimates, and the model-based isotope-to-mass calibration.

free parameters (2)
  • Excitation temperature Texc = 10 K
    Assumed for all three isotopologues, motivated by typical post-AGB values; affects derived gas masses by about 20 percent but has negligible effect on the 17O/18O ratio (Section 5.2).
  • C18O abundance f_C18O = 8.5e-7 (solar), 2.1e-7 (HD 187885)
    Assumed from Karakas & Lugaro (2016) models; directly scales the derived circumstellar gas masses and mass-loss rates (Section 5.2).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The 17O/18O versus initial mass calibration from the MONASH and FRUITY stellar evolution models is correct for these stars.
    Used in Section 6.1.2 to convert measured isotopic ratios into initial masses; if the dredge-up or initial abundance prescriptions are wrong, the derived masses change.
  • domain assumption The C17O and C18O J=2-1 emission is optically thin, and the line flux ratio equals the abundance ratio.
    Assumed in Section 5.1; any opacity would bias the derived isotopic ratios, though these are rare isotopologues and likely thin.
  • domain assumption The size of the C18O J=2-1 emission region traces the gas ejected during the recent high-mass-loss phase.
    Section 5.2 and 6.4; dissociation or excitation effects could make the traced region smaller and the kinematic age a lower limit, which the authors argue would strengthen the fast-evolution claim.
  • domain assumption The adopted distances from Vickers et al. (2015) and Riera et al. (1995) are correct.
    Distances enter the gas mass (d^2), mass-loss rate (d), and kinematic age (d); an error in distance propagates to most derived quantities.
  • domain assumption No significant hot bottom burning has altered the 18O abundance in these stars' envelopes.
    If HBB occurred, 18O would be depleted and 17O/18O inflated, implying even lower initial masses, not higher; the low-mass conclusion is robust to this, but the exact values are not.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of ALMA observations of CO isotopologues towards six obscured post-AGB stars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Q2MCQJML

@misc{pith2026250104492,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: ALMA observations of CO isotopologues towards six obscured post-AGB stars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Q2MCQJML}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.04492}
}
abstract

Low- and intermediate-mass stars evolve through the asymptotic giant branch (AGB), when an efficient mass-loss process removes a significant fraction of their initial mass. A substantial increase in the mass-loss rate at the end of the AGB is observed for at least some stars for unknown reasons. This creates post-AGB objects that are completely enshrouded in thick dusty envelopes and might be associated with binary interactions. We observed the $J=2-1$ line of $^{13}$CO, C$^{17}$O, and C$^{18}$O with the Atacama Large Millimeter / submillimeter Array (ALMA) towards six obscured post-AGB stars (four C-rich and two O-rich sources) to constrain the properties of their circumstellar envelopes, recent mass-loss histories, and initial mass of the central stars. Based on the inferred $^{17}$O/$^{18}$O isotopic ratios, we find all stars to have relatively low initial masses ($< 2~M_\odot$) contrary to suggestions in the literature of higher masses for some sources. We infer a mass for HD~187885 $\sim 1.15~M_\odot$, which is relatively low for a carbon star. For all but one source (GLMP~950), we observe kinematic components with velocities $\gtrsim 30$~km~s$^{-1}$, which are faster than typical AGB wind expansion velocities. For most sources, these higher-velocity outflows display point-symmetric morphologies. The case of Hen~3-1475 is particularly spectacular, with the high-velocity molecular outflow interleaved with the high-velocity outflow of ionised gas observed at optical wavelengths. Based on the size of the emission regions of the slow components of the outflows, we derive typical kinematic ages associated with the C$^{18}$O~$J=2-1$ emission $\lesssim 1500$~years and obtain relatively high associated mass-loss rates ($\gtrsim10^{-4}~M_\odot~{\rm yr}^{-1}$). The sources with known spectral types are found to have evolved faster than expected based on stellar evolutionary models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.04492 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Position of the sources included in our sample in a colour-colour diagram for post-AGB stars. The blue pentagons show the sources in￾cluded in this study, the green squares represent water fountain sources observed by Khouri et al. (2021), and the grey circles correspond to other known post-AGB stars catalogued by Szczerba et al. (2007). The vertical arrows indicate our assessment that the J−band magnitude of GLMP 9… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Continuum (1.3 mm) and J=2−1 13CO, C18O, and C17O line emission towards GLMP 950. Top: Maps of the continuum (colour map) and 13CO J=2−1 emission integrated over the whole line emission (contours) at 10%, 30%, 50% and 70% of the peak value (6.2 Jy beam−1 km s−1 ). The continuum emission peaks at at α = 19h47m24s .430 and δ = 29◦28′13′′ .556. Bottom: source-integrated spec￾tra of the 13CO J=2−1, C18O J=2−1, and C17O … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Continuum (1.3 mm) and J=2−1 13CO, C18O, and C17O line emission towards GLMP 953. Left: Maps of the continuum (colour map) and high-velocity line emission (contours). The continuum peak is at α = 19h50m08s .203 and δ = +25◦11′57′′ .136. The full lines show emission in the 13CO J=2−1 integrated over the spectral intervals marked in grey line plot. Magenta and cyan contours mark red-shifted and blue-shifted emission, … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Continuum (1.3 mm) and J=2−1 13CO, C18O, and C17O line emission towards AFGL 5385. Top: Maps of the continuum (colour map) and high-velocity line emission (contours). The continuum peaks at α = 17h47m13s .499 and δ = −24◦12′51′′ .617. The full white line shows the cont…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Continuum (1.3 mm) and J=2−1 13CO, C18O, and C17O line emission towards HD 187885. Left: Maps of the continuum (colour map) and high-velocity line emission (contours). The continuum peaks at α = 19h52m52s .691 and δ = −17◦01′50′′ .500. The full lines show emission in t…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Continuum (1.3 mm) and J=2−1 13CO, C18O, and C17O line emission towards Hen 3-1475. Left: Maps of the continuum (colour map) and high-velocity line emission (contours). The continuum peaks at α = 17h45m14s .177 and δ = −17◦56′46′′ .895. The full, dashed and dotted line…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Continuum (1.3 mm) and J=2−1 13CO, C18O, and C17O line emission towards M1-92. Top: Maps of the continuum (colour map) and high-velocity line emission (contours). The continuum peaks at α = 19h36m18s .925 and δ = +29◦32′49′′ .687. The full lines show emission in the 13…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Maps of the high-velocity 13CO J=2−1 emission towards Hen 3- 1475 as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 65 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P., Domínguez, I., & Straniero, O

    Abia, C., Hedrosa, R. P., Domínguez, I., & Straniero, O. 2017, A&A, 599, A39

    2017

  2. [2]

    2022, Galaxies, 10, 47

    Alcolea, J., Agúndez, M., Bujarrabal, V ., et al. 2022, Galaxies, 10, 47

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    2007, A&A, 468, L41

    Alcolea, J., Neri, R., & Bujarrabal, V . 2007, A&A, 468, L41

    work page 2007

  4. [4]

    Allen, D. A. & Swings, J. P. 1976, A&A, 47, 293

    work page 1976

  5. [5]

    Blommaert, J. A. D. L., Groenewegen, M. A. T., Justtanont, K., & Decin, L. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 3545

    2018

  6. [6]

    Boboltz, D. A. & Marvel, K. B. 2007, ApJ, 665, 680

    work page 2007

  7. [7]

    A., Grebel, E

    Bobrowsky, M., Zijlstra, A. A., Grebel, E. K., et al. 1995, ApJ, 446, L89

    work page 1995

  8. [8]

    Boffin, H. M. J. & Jones, D. 2019, The Importance of Binaries in the Formation and Evolution of Planetary Nebulae

    work page 2019

Show all 81 references
  1. [9]

    J., Blondin, J

    Borkowski, K. J., Blondin, J. M., & Harrington, J. P. 1997, ApJ, 482, L97

    1997

  2. [10]

    Borkowski, K. J. & Harrington, J. P. 2001, ApJ, 550, 778

    2001

  3. [11]

    1997, A&A, 320, 540

    Bujarrabal, V ., Alcolea, J., Neri, R., & Grewing, M. 1997, A&A, 320, 540

    1997

  4. [12]

    2001, A&A, 377, 868

    Bujarrabal, V ., Castro-Carrizo, A., Alcolea, J., & Sánchez Contreras, C. 2001, A&A, 377, 868

    2001

  5. [13]

    2017, A&A, 597, L5

    Bujarrabal, V ., Castro-Carrizo, A., Alcolea, J., et al. 2017, A&A, 597, L5

    2017

  6. [14]

    2022, Publications of the Astronom- ical Society of the Pacific, 134, 114501

    CASA-Team, Bean, B., Bhatnagar, S., et al. 2022, Publications of the Astronom- ical Society of the Pacific, 134, 114501

    2022

  7. [15]

    Clube, K. L. & Gledhill, T. M. 2004, MNRAS, 355, L17

    2004

  8. [16]

    2015, ApJS, 219, 40

    Cristallo, S., Straniero, O., Piersanti, L., & Gobrecht, D. 2015, ApJS, 219, 40

    2015

  9. [17]

    M., Skrutskie, M

    Cutri, R. M., Skrutskie, M. F., van Dyk, S., et al. 2003, VizieR Online Data Catalog, 2246

    2003

  10. [18]

    2017, A&A, 602, A14

    Danilovich, T., Lombaert, R., Decin, L., et al. 2017, A&A, 602, A14

    2017

  11. [19]

    M., Pihlström, Y

    Day, F. M., Pihlström, Y . M., Claussen, M. J., & Sahai, R. 2010, ApJ, 713, 986 De Marco, O. 2009, PASP, 121, 316 De Marco, O., Long, J., Jacoby, G. H., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 3587 De Nutte, R., Decin, L., Olofsson, H., et al. 2017, A&A, 600, A71

    2010

  12. [20]

    Decin, L., Montargès, M., Richards, A. M. S., et al. 2020, Science, 369, 1497

    2020

  13. [21]

    Dehaes, S., Groenewegen, M. A. T., Decin, L., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 377, 931

    2007

  14. [22]

    J., Moore, T

    Eden, D. J., Moore, T. J. T., Plume, R., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 2163

    2017

  15. [23]

    I., Toalá, J

    Fang, X., Gómez de Castro, A. I., Toalá, J. A., & Riera, A. 2018, ApJ, 865, L23 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A1 Gallardo Cava, I., Bujarrabal, V ., Alcolea, J., Gómez-Garrido, M., & Santander- García, M. 2022, A&A, 659, A134 Gallar...

    2018

  16. [24]

    & Siess, L

    Goriely, S. & Siess, L. 2018, A&A, 609, A29

    2018

  17. [25]

    Groenewegen, M. A. T. 2002, arXiv e-prints, astro

    2002

  18. [26]

    Groenewegen, M. A. T., van den Hoek, L. B., & de Jong, T. 1995, A&A, 293, 381

    1995

  19. [27]

    1996, A&A, 305, 878

    Guertler, J., Koempe, C., & Henning, T. 1996, A&A, 305, 878

    1996

  20. [28]

    J., Lambert, D

    Harris, M. J., Lambert, D. L., Hinkle, K. H., Gustafsson, B., & Eriksson, K. 1987, ApJ, 316, 294

    1987

  21. [29]

    2005, ARA&A, 43, 435

    Herwig, F. 2005, ARA&A, 43, 435

    2005

  22. [30]

    C., Jones, D., De Marco, O., et al

    Hillwig, T. C., Jones, D., De Marco, O., et al. 2016, ApJ, 832, 125

    2016

  23. [31]

    H., Lebzelter, T., & Straniero, O

    Hinkle, K. H., Lebzelter, T., & Straniero, O. 2016, ApJ, 825, 38 Höfner, S. & Olofsson, H. 2018, A&A Rev., 26, 1

    2016

  24. [32]

    J., Muthu, C., Bachiller, R., Forveille, T., & Cox, P

    Huggins, P. J., Muthu, C., Bachiller, R., Forveille, T., & Cox, P. 2004, A&A, 414, 581

    2004

  25. [33]

    & Renzini, A

    Iben, Jr., I. & Renzini, A. 1983, ARA&A, 21, 271

    1983

  26. [34]

    2007, in Astrophysical Masers and their Environments, ed

    Imai, H. 2007, in Astrophysical Masers and their Environments, ed. J. M. Chap- man & W. A. Baan, V ol. 242, 279–286

    2007

  27. [35]

    2010, A&A, 514, A2

    Ita, Y ., Matsuura, M., Ishihara, D., et al. 2010, A&A, 514, A2

    2010

  28. [36]

    & Boffin, H

    Jones, D. & Boffin, H. M. J. 2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 0117

    2017

  29. [37]

    2012, A&A, 537, A144

    Justtanont, K., Khouri, T., Maercker, M., et al. 2012, A&A, 537, A144

    2012

  30. [38]

    Karakas, A. I. & Lattanzio, J. C. 2014, PASA, 31, e030

    2014

  31. [39]

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

    2016

  32. [40]

    I., Lugaro, M., Carlos, M., et al

    Karakas, A. I., Lugaro, M., Carlos, M., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 421

    2018

  33. [41]

    Khouri, T., Vlemmings, W. H. T., Tafoya, D., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 6, 275

    2021

  34. [42]

    2011, MNRAS, 417, 32

    Lagadec, E., Verhoelst, T., Mékarnia, D., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 417, 32

    2011

  35. [43]

    H., Straniero, O., et al

    Lebzelter, T., Hinkle, K. H., Straniero, O., et al. 2019, ApJ, 886, 117

    2019

  36. [44]

    Q., Morris, M

    Li, Y . Q., Morris, M. R., & Sahai, R. 2024, Galaxies, 12

    2024

  37. [45]

    2011, AJ, 141, 80 Miller Bertolami, M

    Lario, P. 2011, AJ, 141, 80 Miller Bertolami, M. M. 2016, A&A, 588, A25

    2011

  38. [46]

    & De Marco, O

    Moe, M. & De Marco, O. 2006, ApJ, 650, 916

    2006

  39. [47]

    1985, A&A, 142, 107

    Morris, M., Lucas, R., & Omont, A. 1985, A&A, 142, 107

    1985

  40. [48]

    A., et al

    Olofsson, H., Khouri, T., Sargent, B. A., et al. 2022, A&A, 665, A82

    2022

  41. [49]

    1993, A&A, 267, 515

    Omont, A., Loup, C., Forveille, T., et al. 1993, A&A, 267, 515

    1993

  42. [50]

    2018, A&A, 620, A85

    Oomen, G.-M., Van Winckel, H., Pols, O., et al. 2018, A&A, 620, A85

    2018

  43. [51]

    D., Bieging, J

    Oppenheimer, B. D., Bieging, J. H., Schmidt, G. D., et al. 2005, ApJ, 624, 957

    2005

  44. [52]

    2021, Uni- verse, 7, 175

    Palmerini, S., Cristallo, S., Piersanti, L., Vescovi, D., & Busso, M. 2021, Uni- verse, 7, 175

    2021

  45. [53]

    A., Acker, A., Frew, D

    Parker, Q. A., Acker, A., Frew, D. J., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 373, 79

    2006

  46. [54]

    Ramstedt, S., Vlemmings, W. H. T., Doan, L., et al. 2020, A&A, 640, A133

    2020

  47. [55]

    R., Izzard, R

    Rees, N. R., Izzard, R. G., & Karakas, A. I. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 9643

    2024

  48. [56]

    1981, Red giants as precursors of planetary nebulae, ed

    Renzini, A. 1981, Red giants as precursors of planetary nebulae, ed. J. Iben, I. & A. Renzini, V ol. 88, 431–446

    1981

  49. [57]

    2003, A&A, 401, 1039

    Riera, A., García-Lario, P., Manchado, A., Bobrowsky, M., & Estalella, R. 2003, A&A, 401, 1039

    2003

  50. [58]

    R., & Raga, A

    Riera, A., Garcia-Lario, P., Manchado, A., Pottasch, S. R., & Raga, A. C. 1995, A&A, 302, 137

    1995

  51. [59]

    H., Frank, A., Morris, M., & Blackman, E

    Sahai, R., Kastner, J. H., Frank, A., Morris, M., & Blackman, E. G. 2003, ApJ, 599, L87

    2003

  52. [60]

    2007, AJ, 134, 2200

    Sahai, R., Morris, M., Sánchez Contreras, C., & Claussen, M. 2007, AJ, 134, 2200

    2007

  53. [61]

    R., & Villar, G

    Sahai, R., Morris, M. R., & Villar, G. G. 2011, AJ, 141, 134

    2011

  54. [62]

    & Trauger, J

    Sahai, R. & Trauger, J. T. 1998, AJ, 116, 1357

    1998

  55. [63]

    Sahai, R., Vlemmings, W. H. T., Gledhill, T., et al. 2017, ApJ, 835, L13 Sánchez Contreras, C., Alcolea, J., Bujarrabal, V ., & Neri, R. 1998, A&A, 337, 233 Article number, page 17 of 22 A&A proofs: manuscript no. Post-AGB_isotopic_ratio_pilotSample_v5_editor_withAppendices Sá...

    2017

  56. [64]

    2017, A&A, 603, A67 Sánchez Contreras, C

    Pintado, J. 2017, A&A, 603, A67 Sánchez Contreras, C. & Sahai, R. 2001, ApJ, 553, L173 Sánchez Contreras, C. & Sahai, R. 2012, ApJS, 203, 16

    2017

  57. [65]

    Smith, V . V . & Lambert, D. L. 1990, ApJS, 72, 387

    1990

  58. [66]

    2020, Galaxies, 8, 26

    Soker, N. 2020, Galaxies, 8, 26

    2020

  59. [67]

    J., Izzard, R

    Stancliffe, R. J., Izzard, R. G., & Tout, C. A. 2005, MNRAS, 356, L1

    2005

  60. [68]

    J., Tout, C

    Stancliffe, R. J., Tout, C. A., & Pols, O. R. 2004, MNRAS, 352, 984

    2004

  61. [69]

    Su, K. Y . L., Hrivnak, B. J., Kwok, S., & Sahai, R. 2003, AJ, 126, 848

    2003

  62. [70]

    Su, K. Y . L., V olk, K., Kwok, S., & Hrivnak, B. J. 1998, ApJ, 508, 744 Suárez, O., García-Lario, P., Manchado, A., et al. 2006, A&A, 458, 173

    1998

  63. [71]

    2007, A&A, 469, 799

    Szczerba, R., Siódmiak, N., Stasi ´nska, G., & Borkowski, J. 2007, A&A, 469, 799

    2007

  64. [72]

    F., et al

    Tafoya, D., Imai, H., Gómez, J. F., et al. 2020, ApJ, 890, L14

    2020

  65. [73]

    Trammell, S. R. & Goodrich, R. W. 1996, ApJ, 468, L107

    1996

  66. [74]

    2007, AJ, 133, 1345 Van Winckel, H

    Ueta, T., Murakawa, K., & Meixner, M. 2007, AJ, 133, 1345 Van Winckel, H. 2007, Baltic Astronomy, 16, 112 Van Winckel, H. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1809.00871 Van Winckel, H. & Reyniers, M. 2000, A&A, 354, 135 Van Winckel, H., Waelkens, C., & Waters, L. B. F. M. 1996, A&A, 306, L37

    2007 arXiv

  67. [75]

    & Wood, P

    Vassiliadis, E. & Wood, P. R. 1993, ApJ, 413, 641

    1993

  68. [76]

    & Wood, P

    Vassiliadis, E. & Wood, P. R. 1994, ApJS, 92, 125

    1994

  69. [77]

    P., Agúndez, M., et al

    Velilla-Prieto, L., Fonfría, J. P., Agúndez, M., et al. 2023, Nature, 617, 696

    2023

  70. [78]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, 2282

    Ramirez, L. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 2282

    2018

  71. [79]

    B., Frew, D

    Vickers, S. B., Frew, D. J., Parker, Q. A., & Boji ˇci´c, I. S. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 1673 V olk, K., Kwok, S., & Hrivnak, B. J. 2007, ApJ, 670, 1137

    2015

  72. [80]

    & Ferguson, J

    Weiss, A. & Ferguson, J. W. 2009, A&A, 508, 1343

    2009

  73. [81]

    40.0" 30.0

    Wenger, M., Ochsenbein, F., Egret, D., et al. 2000, A&AS, 143, 9 Article number, page 18 of 22 T. Khouri et al.: ALMA observations of CO isotopologues towards six obscured post-AGB stars Appendix A: Additional table Table A.1. Lines other than those of CO isotopologues detecte...

    2000

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.