Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 47 references

The Gas-to-Dust Ratio Investigation in the Massive Star-Forming region M17

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read M17's gas-to-dust ratio rises sharply in its dense interior, reaching roughly three times the Milky Way average.

desk verdict A useful new extinction/CO data paper for M17 whose headline dense-core GDR excess is probably an artifact of the 90" extinction smoothing and missing background stars, not a real change in gas-to-dust ratio. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.04626 v1 pith:3POOWSWO submitted 2025-02-07 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.SR

Qi Zhao , Zhibo Jiang , Chao-Jian Wu , Jie Zheng , Cheng Cheng , YiNan Zhu , Hong Wu This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR
keywords gas-to-dustratioM17interstellarextinctionCOintegratedintensitymolecularcloudsmassivestarformationWD01dustmodel
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

This paper claims that the gas-to-dust ratio (GDR) inside the massive star-forming region M17 is not the Milky Way norm. Using CO integrated intensity from the MWISP survey (a northern Galactic-plane CO survey) to trace gas and near-infrared extinction from the UKIRT telescope to trace dust, the authors find that for extinction $A_V \le 10$ mag the GDR is $118 \pm 9$ (from $^{12}$CO) and $83 \pm 62$ (from $^{13}$CO), consistent with the canonical Milky Way value near 100. For $A_V \ge 10$ mag the ratio jumps to $296 \pm 3$ (from $^{12}$CO) and $387 \pm 40$ (from $^{13}$CO), about three times the Milky Way average. If correct, the dense cloud core of M17 holds much more gas per unit dust than standard calibrations assume, which would affect how molecular gas masses are measured in massive star-forming regions.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is a segmented linear fit of $W(\mathrm{CO})$ versus $A_V$ with a break point at $A_V = 10$ mag, combined with the conversion chain $W(\mathrm{CO}) \to N(\mathrm{H_2}) \to N(\mathrm{H}) \to \mathrm{GDR}$. Gas column densities come from two tracers: $^{12}$CO with $X_{\rm CO} = 2\times10^{20}$ cm$^{-2}\,(\mathrm{K\,km\,s^{-1}})^{-1}$, and $^{13}$CO under local thermodynamic equilibrium with the abundance ratio $N(\mathrm{H_2})/N(^{13}\mathrm{CO}) = 7.5\times10^5$. Dust column density is obtained from the $(H-K)$ colour excess through $A_V = 15[(H-K)_{\rm obs} - 0.2]$. The chain closes with the WD01 dust model (a silicate-graphite mixture fitted to the Milky Way extinction curve), whose constant in Eq. (13) converts $N(\mathrm{H})/A_V$ into the mass ratio. The break at 10 mag is what produces the threefold GDR jump.

What would settle it

Measure the dust column in the same $A_V \ge 10$ mag pixels from far-infrared or submillimetre dust emission instead of extinction. If the emission-derived dust mass is about three times the extinction-derived value, the GDR jump is an artifact of the WD01 conversion; if it agrees with the extinction-derived value, the high GDR is real.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the gas-to-dust ratio in M17 rises sharply at high extinction. The authors measure a segmented linear relation between CO integrated intensity and visual extinction, with a break at $A_V = 10$ mag: $W(^{12}\mathrm{CO})/A_V$ goes from $6.27 \pm 0.19$ to $15.8 \pm 0.06$ $\mathrm{K\,km\,s^{-1}\,mag^{-1}}$, and $W(^{13}\mathrm{CO})/A_V$ from $0.75 \pm 0.72$ to $3.11 \pm 0.25$. After converting CO brightness to hydrogen column density with $X_{\rm CO} = 2\times10^{20}$ cm$^{-2}\,(\mathrm{K\,km\,s^{-1}})^{-1}$ for $^{12}$CO and an LTE analysis with $N(\mathrm{H_2})/N(^{13}\mathrm{CO}) = 7.5\times10^5$ for $^{13}$CO, and then converting $N(\mathrm{H})/A_V$ to GDR with the WD01 dust model, the derived GDR stays near 100 at low extinction but reaches about 300-390 at high extinction. The authors interpret this as the dense interior of M17 containing roughly three times more gas per unit dust than the Milky Way average, possibly tied to massive-star feedback changing CO abundance or dust properties.

Load-bearing premise

The result assumes that the adopted Milky Way conversion constants — $X_{\rm CO}$, $N(\mathrm{H_2})/N(^{13}\mathrm{CO})$, and especially the WD01 dust model relation between $N(\mathrm{H})/A_V$ and GDR — remain valid in M17's dense interior, where dust grains may grow, be destroyed, or change composition.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At $A_V \le 10$ mag the derived GDR is indistinguishable from the Milky Way value of about 100, so the method reproduces standard calibrations in the cloud envelope.
  • At $A_V \ge 10$ mag both CO isotopologues give GDRs of $296 \pm 3$ and $387 \pm 40$, about three times the Milky Way average, implying the dense core is gas-rich relative to dust.
  • The low-extinction $N(\mathrm{H})/A_V$ values agree with previous estimates for Orion and the high-latitude ISM, while the high-extinction values ($6.32$ and $8.27\times10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$ mag$^{-1}$) exceed all previous measurements.
  • Massive stars in M17 sit in low-extinction cavities with relatively high GDR, suggesting that they locally deplete or destroy dust while leaving CO emission bright.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the GDR jump is real, gas masses for dense molecular clumps that assume a fixed Milky Way GDR would be underestimated by about a factor of three; the same correction may apply to other massive star-forming regions, not just M17.
  • A decisive test is to measure the dust column in the same high-$A_V$ pixels from far-infrared or submillimetre dust emission: if emission-derived dust mass is roughly three times the extinction-derived value, the jump is an extinction-calibration artifact rather than a true gas excess.
  • The apparent rise could also be mimicked by CO abundance enhancement near massive stars, so mapping a CO-free dense-gas tracer such as N$_2$H$^+$ across the core would separate a real GDR change from a CO abundance effect.
  • Spatially resolved infrared spectroscopy of the 9.7 $\mu$m silicate feature would directly test the paper's suggestion that the dust composition in M17 is more graphite-rich than the WD01 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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper derives the gas-to-dust ratio (GDR) in the massive star-forming region M17 by combining MWISP 12CO and 13CO integrated-intensity maps with an infrared extinction map from UKIRT near-IR photometry. The authors measure the ratio W(CO)/A_V in two extinction regimes, finding a steeper slope for A_V >= 10 mag than for A_V <= 10 mag, and then convert the slopes into N(H)/A_V and GDR using fixed literature constants: X_CO = 2e20, N(H2)/N(13CO) = 7.5e5, and the WD01 dust model conversion. The central claim is that the GDR in M17 increases to 296 +/- 3 (12CO) and 387 +/- 40 (13CO) at high extinction, roughly three times the Milky Way average, whereas at low extinction the GDR is consistent with standard values. The paper also discusses possible causes, including massive-star feedback, dust destruction/growth, and composition changes.

Significance. If correct, the result would indicate a substantial variation of the gas-to-dust ratio within a single massive star-forming cloud, with implications for CO-to-H2 conversion factors and dust evolution in dense regions. The paper contributes a new, deep near-IR extinction map of M17 (about 1.2 million stars) and a comparison of GDR across different dust models. However, the headline GDR values are not derived from a measurement of dust mass independent of the adopted extinction law; they are obtained by multiplying observed W(CO)/A_V slopes by external calibrations (X_CO, 13CO abundance, WD01). The robustness of the claimed increase therefore rests on whether the A_V map faithfully traces dust column in the high-extinction regime and on whether the adopted calibrations remain valid there. The paper is transparent about some of these limitations but does not quantify their impact. The central claim is interesting and potentially important, but it needs a quantitative treatment of the systematic effects before it can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.3, Eq. (5)] The extinction map is a Gaussian-weighted average of stellar A_V values with FWHM 90", while the CO maps have a resolution of approximately 50" (Section 2.1). In pixels with A_V >= 10 mag, background stars behind the dense cloud are mostly undetected at the UKIRT depth, so the stars that contribute to the weighted average are preferentially foreground or lightly reddened sources. These stars do not sample the full column of the cloud, yet W(CO) integrates the entire line of sight. This resolution and source-selection mismatch will inflate W(CO)/A_V preferentially in the very pixels that define the A_V >= 10 mag branch. The paper needs a quantitative test—for example, synthetic star fields drawn from a known column and GDR, or a comparison with an independently constructed extinction map using red clump giants or a deconvolved map—to demonstrate that the reported break at A_V = 10 mag is not an artifact of this weighting.
  2. [Section 3.4, Eq. (13)] The absolute GDR values are derived by multiplying the fitted slope by external conversion constants: X_CO = 2e20 cm^-2 (K km/s)^-1 with an adopted 30% uncertainty (Bolatto et al. 2013), N(H2)/N(13CO) = 7.5e5, and the WD01 conversion coefficient from Lv et al. (2018). The quoted uncertainties (e.g., 296 +/- 3 for 12CO at A_V >= 10 mag) include only the fit errors of the slope. A 30% uncertainty in X_CO alone would produce a 30% systematic error in the 12CO-based N(H) and GDR, and the 13CO-based values additionally depend on the assumed LTE excitation temperature and optical depth. The paper should present a systematic-error budget that propagates these constants, and should state explicitly how the high-A_V conclusion changes if, for example, X_CO varies by a factor of 2 in dense gas or if the WD01 conversion is replaced by an alternative dust model suitable for coagulated grains.
  3. [Section 3.2, Figure 7] The 13CO slope in the low-extinction regime is 0.75 +/- 0.72 K km/s mag^-1, which is consistent with zero at the ~1-sigma level; the corresponding GDR of 83 +/- 62 for A_V <= 10 mag is not a meaningful measurement and should not be used to claim consistency with the Milky Way value. In addition, the break at A_V = 10 mag is adopted from Lv et al. (2018) rather than being tested against the M17 data. Please add a statistical test for the segmented fit (e.g., an F-test or a comparison of Bayesian information criteria for one slope versus two slopes) and report the correlation coefficients and scatter of the binned data. Without this, the reality of the two-regime behavior is not established beyond the visual impression of Figure 7.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and text] The compiled text contains many missing spaces (e.g., "M17isawell-known"), which makes the paper hard to read; please ensure proper copy-editing of the LaTeX source.
  2. [Figures 12 and 13 captions] The GDR maps are labeled with units of 10^21 cm^-2 mag^-1, but GDR is a dimensionless ratio; please correct the captions and color-bar labels.
  3. [Section 2.3, Eq. (5)] Equation (5) defines a single two-dimensional Gaussian, but the text describes a weighted average of A_V values over stars. Please provide the full formula for the weighted mean used to assign an A_V to each pixel, including the normalization and the weight assigned to each star.
  4. [Section 2.3, paragraph 4] The text says "we detected approximately 1.2 million more stars" when comparing with Lucas et al. (2008); since the paper detected about 1.2 million stars total and Lucas et al. reported 0.788 million, the comparison should be phrased as "about 1.2 million stars, compared to 0.788 million in Lucas et al."
  5. [Section 4.1, references] Chen (2015) is cited as a National Science Library thesis; if the underlying data or method has a peer-reviewed publication, please cite that instead, or provide the thesis details in a more complete form.
  6. [Section 3.3, Eq. (11)] The 13CO column density is derived under the assumptions of LTE and optically thin 13CO, but these assumptions are not discussed for the high-extinction regime where the 13CO lines may become optically thick; please add a cautionary note or a test of the optical depth.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the derived GDR is a transparent rescaling of measured W(CO)/A_V slopes by external, independently published calibration constants.

full rationale

The derivation chain is explicit and self-contained: W(CO)/A_V is fitted from the MWISP CO maps and the UKIRT extinction map (Sect. 3.2); N(H)/A_V is obtained by multiplying the fitted slopes by fixed literature constants (X_CO = 2e20 cm^-2 (K km/s)^-1, Bolatto et al. 2013; N(H2)/N(13CO) = 7.5e5, Sun & Li 2004; factor 2, Sect. 3.3); and GDR is a linear rescaling of N(H)/A_V by the WD01 dust-model coefficient (Sect. 3.4, Eq. 13). Each conversion is a multiplication by an externally calibrated constant; no parameter is fitted to the M17 data and then rediscovered as a prediction. The high-AV GDR (~300) is the same measurement as the high-AV W(CO)/A_V slope in different units, not an output that was fed back as an input. The paper cites Lv et al. (2018), which includes coauthor Jiang, for the method and the WD01 conversion coefficient, but this is not load-bearing: the coefficient is traceable to Weingartner & Draine (2001), an independent external model, and the qualitative increase is present for all three dust models in Table 1. The limitations openly acknowledged in Sect. 4.2 (X_CO variation, dust composition, scattered light, possible A_V underestimation) and the 90-inch Gaussian smoothing in Sect. 2.3 are systematic-error or data-quality concerns, not equation-by-construction circularity. Therefore no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The measured W(CO)/AV slopes are converted into GDR using several adopted constants from prior literature (X_CO, 13CO abundance, reddening law, WD01 dust model). These are not derived in this paper and systematic uncertainties in them are not propagated. This makes the absolute GDR values calibration-dependent, though the relative difference between low and high AV is dominated by the measured slopes.

free parameters (6)
  • X_CO conversion factor = 2x10^20 cm^-2 (K km/s)^-1
    Adopted from Bolatto et al. (2013) in Eq. 6; converts W(12CO) to N(H2). Its +/-30% uncertainty is not propagated into the reported GDR errors.
  • N(H2)/N(13CO) abundance ratio = 7.5x10^5
    Assumed relative abundance in Eq. 12 to convert N(13CO) to N(H2); a constant value may fail in dense M17 gas.
  • Reddening conversion and intrinsic color = r=15 mag, (H-K)_intrinsic=0.2 mag
    Used in Eq. 4 to derive AV from NIR color excess; systematic uncertainty in the reddening law is not propagated.
  • AV=10 mag segmentation boundary = 10 mag
    Chosen to match Lv et al. (2018) rather than derived from an objective break; changing it changes both fitted slopes and GDR values.
  • Foreground star cutoff = 3.5 mag
    Based on a double Gaussian fit to high-extinction pixels (Fig. 3); stars with AV less than 3.5 mag are removed, affecting the low-AV sample and fitted intercept.
  • WD01 GDR conversion coefficient = 46.8x10^-21 cm^2 mag
    Converts N(H)/AV to GDR via Eq. 13 using the WD01 dust model; if M17 dust differs, all absolute GDR numbers shift.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption 12CO J=1-0 integrated intensity is a linear tracer of H2 column density with a constant X_CO
    Eq. 6 in Section 3.3; the paper applies the Milky Way X_CO to dense M17 gas where optical depth and excitation may deviate.
  • domain assumption 13CO is optically thin and in LTE with Tex(13CO) equal to Tex(12CO)
    Eqs. 8 to 11 in Section 3.3; standard LTE assumption, likely violated in the densest cores.
  • domain assumption N(H) equals 2 N(H2) and atomic HI makes no significant contribution
    Eq. 7 and Section 4.2 item (3); the authors explicitly note HI is neglected.
  • domain assumption Interstellar dust in M17 follows the WD01 Milky Way extinction curve and dust-to-extinction relation
    Section 3.4 and Eq. 13; the paper discusses possible graphite and silicate differences but applies WD01 uniformly.
  • domain assumption Foreground contamination is separable by a simple AV less than 3.5 mag cutoff
    Section 2.3 and Figure 3; assumes the double Gaussian minimum separates foreground and cloud members.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Gas-to-Dust Ratio Investigation in the Massive Star-Forming region M17." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3POOWSWO

@misc{pith2026250204626,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Gas-to-Dust Ratio Investigation in the Massive Star-Forming region M17},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3POOWSWO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.04626}
}
abstract

M17 is a well-known massive star-forming region, and its Gas-to-Dust Ratio (GDR) may vary significantly compared to the other areas. The mass of gas can be traced by the ${\rm CO}$ emission observed in the \emph{Milky Way Imaging Scroll Painting (MWISP) project}. The dust mass can be traced by analyzing the interstellar extinction magnitude obtained from the \emph{United Kingdom Infrared Telescope (UKIRT)}. We computed the ratio ${W({\rm CO})/A_V}$: for ${A_V \le }$ 10 mag, ${{ W(^{12}{\rm CO})/ A_V}= (6.27 \pm 0.19)}$ ${\mathrm{{K \cdot km/s} \cdot mag^{-1}}}$ and ${{ W(^{13}{\rm CO})/ A_V} = (0.75 \pm 0.72)}$ ${ \mathrm{{K \cdot km/s} \cdot mag^{-1}}}$; whereas for ${{A_V} \ge 10}$ mag, ${{ W(^{12}{\rm CO})/ A_V} = (15.8 \pm 0.06) }$ ${\mathrm{{K \cdot km/s} \cdot mag^{-1}}}$ and ${{ W(^{13}{\rm CO})/ A_V} = (3.11 \pm 0.25)}$ ${ \mathrm{{K \cdot km/s} \cdot mag^{-1}}}$. Then, we converted the ${W({\rm CO})/A_V}$ into ${N(\rm H)/A_V}$. Using the WD01 model, we derived the GDR: for ${A_V \le }$ 10 mag, the GDRs were ${118 \pm 9}$ for ${^{12}{\rm CO}}$ and ${83 \pm 62}$ for ${^{13}{\rm CO}}$, comparable to those of the Milky Way; however, for ${A_V \ge }$ 10 mag, the GDRs increased significantly to ${296 \pm 3}$ for ${^{12}{\rm CO}}$ and ${387 \pm 40}$ for ${^{13}{\rm CO}}$, approximately three times higher than those of the Milky Way. In the discussion, we compared the results of this work with previous studies and provided a detailed discussion of the influence of massive stars and other factors on GDR.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.04626 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Histograms of the apparent magnitude in the 𝐽-, 𝐻- and 𝐾-bands of M17. We observed approximately 1.20 million stars. In the 𝐽-band, the apparent magnitude is concentrated in 19.55 mag; in the 𝐻-band, the apparent magnitude is concentrated in 18.05 mag; while in the 𝐾-band, the apparent magnitude is concentrated in 17.25 mag [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Colour-colour diagram created by the PSF photometry star cata￾logue. The horizontal axis represents the colour index of (𝐻 − 𝐾), and the vertical axis represents the colour index of (𝐽 − 𝐻). The red dots represent giant star trajectories, while the yellow dots represent main-sequence dwarf trajectories. We constructed an envelope of the giant branch trajectories and the main-sequence dwarf trajectory at the second t… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. 12CO integrated intensity map of M17 in the equatorial coordinate system. The pixel size of the map is 30′′ × 30′′. The unit is K · km/s. 22m20 s 21m40 s 21m00 s 20m20 s 19m40 s 19m00 s RA(J2000) -16 35 0 -16 25 0 -16 15 0 -16 05 0 -15 55 0 -15 45 0 Dec(J2000) 18 h 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 W(1 3 C O) / (K k m / s) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: 13CO integrated intensity map of M17 in the equatorial coordinate system. The pixel size of the map is 30′′ × 30′′. The unit is K · km/s. 3.2 𝑊 (CO)/𝐴𝑉 of M17 Using 𝐴𝑉 as the horizontal coordinate and 𝑊 (CO) as the vertical coordinate, we generated a scatter plot for e…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Extinction map of M17 in the equatorial coordinate system. The rainbow colourmap ranges from 𝐴𝑉 = 5 mag (purple) to 𝐴𝑉 = 26 mag (red). We utilized 30′′ × 30′′ as the pixel cell size, yielding a resolution of 90′′ . The unit is mag [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p00…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: 𝑊 (CO)/𝐴𝑉 ratio derived from 12CO integrated intensity map and 13CO integrated intensity map. The blue dots represent the scatter plot of 𝑊 ( 12CO)/𝐴𝑉 , with the blue-green line representing the fitted line of 𝑊 ( 12CO)/𝐴𝑉 . Similarly, the red dots depict the scatter p…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The column density of hydrogen (𝑁 (H)) map derived from 13CO of M17 in the equatorial coordinate system. The pixel size of the map is 30′′ × 30′′. The unit is 1021 cm−2 . Assuming the relative abundance of 13CO: 𝑁(𝐻2)/𝑁( 13CO) = 7.5 × 105 (12) we can compute the column…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The comparison of various 𝑁 (H)/AV values derived from dif￾ferent works. When 𝐴𝑉 ≤ 10 mag, the results of this work are generally consistent with those of previous work. However, when 𝐴𝑉 ≥ 10 mag, there is a significant difference between the results of this work and …
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: GDR map derived from 13CO with massive stars marked by white points. And the unit is 1021 cm−2 · mag−1 . 22m20 s 21m40 s 21m00 s 20m20 s 19m40 s 19m00 s RA(J2000) -16 35 0 -16 25 0 -16 15 0 -16 05 0 -15 55 0 -15 45 0 Dec(J2000) 18 h 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 17.5 20.0 22.5 2…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Extinction map with massive stars marked by white points. These massive stars are distributed within cavities characterized by low extinction magnitude regions surrounded by areas of high extinction magnitude. And the unit is mag. The relatively low extinction and hig…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  3. [3]

    V., Kirsanova M

    Akimkin V. V., Kirsanova M. S., Pavlyuchenkov Y. N., Wiebe D. S., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx797 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.469..630A 469, 630

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx797 2017

  4. [4]

    J., 1997, IAU Symposium, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997IAUS..170...47A 170, 47

    Alves J., Lada C. J., 1997, IAU Symposium, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997IAUS..170...47A 170, 47

    work page 1997

  5. [5]

    C., Savage B

    Bohlin R. C., Savage B. D., Drake J. F., 1978, @doi [ ] 10.1086/156357 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978ApJ...224..132B 224, 132

    doi:10.1086/156357 1978

  6. [6]

    D., Wolfire M., Leroy A

    Bolatto A. D., Wolfire M., Leroy A. K., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140944 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ARA&A..51..207B 51, 207

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140944 2013

  7. [7]

    Casali M., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20066514 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A&A...467..777C 467, 777

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20066514 2007

  8. [8]

    Chen Z., 2015, National Science Library Chinese Academy of Sciences, LW104453

    work page 2015

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    Q., Liu X

    Chen B. Q., Liu X. W., Yuan H. B., Huang Y., Xiang M. S., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv103 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.448.2187C 448, 2187

    2015 doi

  2. [10]

    Chen Z., Jiang Z., Tamura M., Kwon J., Roman-Lopes A., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa65d3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...838...80C 838, 80

    2017 doi

  3. [11]

    F., 1998, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998A&A...329..161C 329, 161

    Chini R., Wargau W. F., 1998, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998A&A...329..161C 329, 161

    1998

  4. [12]

    Combes F., 1991, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.aa.29.090191.001211 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991ARA&A..29..195C 29, 195

    1991

  5. [13]

    M., Hartmann D., Thaddeus P., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/318388 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...547..792D 547, 792

    Dame T. M., Hartmann D., Thaddeus P., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/318388 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...547..792D 547, 792

    2001 doi

  6. [14]

    L., Snell R

    Dickman R. L., Snell R. L., Schloerb F. P., 1986, @doi [ ] 10.1086/164604 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986ApJ...309..326D 309, 326

    1986 doi

  7. [15]

    T., 2009, in Henning T., Gr \"u n E., Steinacker J., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol

    Draine B. T., 2009, in Henning T., Gr \"u n E., Steinacker J., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 414, Cosmic Dust - Near and Far. p. 453 ( @eprint arXiv 0903.1658 ), @doi 10.48550/arXiv.0903.1658

    2009 doi arXiv

  8. [16]

    T., Lee H

    Draine B. T., Lee H. M., 1984, @doi [ ] 10.1086/162480 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984ApJ...285...89D 285, 89

    1984 doi

  9. [17]

    T., Salpeter E

    Draine B. T., Salpeter E. E., 1979, @doi [ ] 10.1086/157206 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979ApJ...231..438D 231, 438

    1979 doi

  10. [18]

    Entekhabi N., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202142601 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...662A..39E 662, A39

    2022 doi

  11. [19]

    M., Howarth I

    Hanson M. M., Howarth I. D., Conti P. S., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/304808 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...489..698H 489, 698

    1997 doi

  12. [20]

    M., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122324 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ARA&A..53..583H 53, 583

    Heyer M., Dame T. M., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122324 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ARA&A..53..583H 53, 583

    2015 doi

  13. [21]

    H., Chini R., Scheyda C

    Hoffmeister V. H., Chini R., Scheyda C. M., Schulze D., Watermann R., N \"u rnberger D., Vogt N., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/591070 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...686..310H 686, 310

    2008 doi

  14. [22]

    J., Tielens A

    Hollenbach D. J., Tielens A. G. G. M., 1999, @doi [Reviews of Modern Physics] 10.1103/RevModPhys.71.173 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999RvMP...71..173H 71, 173

    1999 doi

  15. [23]

    Kainulainen J., Alves J., Beuther H., Henning T., Schuller F., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201117757 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A&A...536A..48K 536, A48

    2011 doi

  16. [24]

    S., Pavlyuchenkov Y

    Kirsanova M. S., Pavlyuchenkov Y. N., 2023, in Bisikalo D., Wiebe D., Boily C., eds, IAU Symposium Vol. 362, The Predictive Power of Computational Astrophysics as a Discover Tool. pp 268--272 ( @eprint arXiv 2203.05986 ), @doi 10.1017/S1743921322001880

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Koutoulaki M., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834713 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...625A..49K 625, A49

    2019 doi

  18. [26]

    Kr \"u gel E., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:200809976 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A&A...493..385K 493, 385

    2009 doi

  19. [27]

    F., Penfield H., 1974, @doi [ ] 10.1086/181458 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974ApJ...189L..35L 189, L35

    Lada C., Dickinson D. F., Penfield H., 1974, @doi [ ] 10.1086/181458 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974ApJ...189L..35L 189, L35

    1974 doi

  20. [28]

    J., Alves J., Lada E

    Lada C. J., Alves J., Lada E. A., 1999, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...512..250L 512

    1999

  21. [29]

    Liseau R., Lorenzetti D., Molinari S., Nisini B., Saraceno P., Spinoglio L., 1995, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995A&A...300..493L 300, 493

    1995

  22. [30]

    Liseau R., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201525641 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...578A.131L 578, A131

    2015 doi

  23. [31]

    Liszt H., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/783/1/17 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...783...17L 783, 17

    2014 doi

  24. [32]

    W., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13924.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.391..136L 391, 136

    Lucas P. W., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13924.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.391..136L 391, 136

    2008

  25. [33]

    Lv Z.-p., Jiang B.-w., Li J., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.chinastron.2018.04.004 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ChA&A..42..213L 42, 213

    2018 doi

  26. [34]

    P., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201118740 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...543A.103P 543, A103

    Paradis D., Dobashi K., Shimoikura T., Kawamura A., Onishi T., Fukui Y., Bernard J. P., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201118740 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...543A.103P 543, A103

    2012 doi

  27. [35]

    C., de Koter A., Backs F., Derkink A., Bik A., Kaper L., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202245658 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...676A.122P 676, A122

    Poorta J., Ram \' rez-Tannus M. C., de Koter A., Backs F., Derkink A., Bik A., Kaper L., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202245658 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...676A.122P 676, A122

    2023 doi

  28. [36]

    C., et al., 2017a, VizieR Online Data Catalog, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017yCat..36040078R pp J/A+A/604/A78

    Ramirez-Tannus M. C., et al., 2017a, VizieR Online Data Catalog, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017yCat..36040078R pp J/A+A/604/A78

  29. [37]

    C., et al., 2017b, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629503 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...604A..78R 604, A78

    Ram \' rez-Tannus M. C., et al., 2017b, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629503 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...604A..78R 604, A78

    doi

  30. [38]

    H., Lebofsky M

    Rieke G. H., Lebofsky M. J., 1985, @doi [ ] 10.1086/162827 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985ApJ...288..618R 288, 618

    1985 doi

  31. [39]

    H., Adams F

    Shu F. H., Adams F. C., Lizano S., 1987, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.aa.25.090187.000323 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987ARA&A..25...23S 25, 23

    1987

  32. [40]

    M., van Steenberg M

    Shull J. M., van Steenberg M. E., 1985, @doi [ ] 10.1086/163327 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985ApJ...294..599S 294, 599

    1985 doi

  33. [41]

    F., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/498708 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AJ....131.1163S 131, 1163

    Skrutskie M. F., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/498708 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AJ....131.1163S 131, 1163

    2006 doi

  34. [42]

    H., Hopkins P

    Soliman N. H., Hopkins P. F., Grudi \'c M. Y., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6ddd , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...974..136S 974, 136

    2024 doi

  35. [43]

    John Wiley and Sons, Inc., @doi 10.1002/9783527617722

    Spitzer L., 1978, Physical processes in the interstellar medium . John Wiley and Sons, Inc., @doi 10.1002/9783527617722

    1978 doi

  36. [44]

    Su Y., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/aaf1c8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJS..240....9S 240, 9

    2019 doi

  37. [45]

    Beijing Normal University Publishing Group

    Sun J., Li S., 2004, Fundamentals of Molecular Astrophysics . Beijing Normal University Publishing Group

    2004

  38. [46]

    C., Draine B

    Weingartner J. C., Draine B. T., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/318651 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...548..296W 548, 296

    2001 doi

  39. [47]

    S., Scoville N

    Young J. S., Scoville N. Z., 1991, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.aa.29.090191.003053 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991ARA&A..29..581Y 29, 581

    1991

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.