Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 78 references

The ALMA-ATOMS Survey: Exploring Protostellar Outflows in HC$_3$N

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A dense-gas molecule usually used for cores, HC3N, also works as an outflow tracer and catches the low-velocity gas that SiO misses.

desk verdict The HC3N outflow catalog is a genuinely useful new sample, but the headline claim that HC3N beats SiO at low velocities rests on a non-significant KS test and an untested masking assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.04164 v1 pith:7QDGLT2H submitted 2025-05-07 astro-ph.GA

Ariful Hoque , Tapas Baug , Lokesh K. Dewangan , Mika Juvela , Anandmayee Tej , Paul F. Goldsmith , Pablo García , Amelia M. Stutz
show 20 more authors
Tie Liu Chang Won Lee Fengwei Xu Patricio Sanhueza N. K. Bhadari K. Tatematsu Xunchuan Liu Hong-Li Liu Yong Zhang Xindi Tang Guido Garay Ke Wang Siju Zhang L. Viktor Tóth Hafiz Nazeer Jihye Hwang Prasanta Gorai Leonardo Bronfman Swagat Ranjan Das Tirthendu Sinha
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords protostellaroutflowsHC3Ncyanoacetylenemassivestar-formingregionsoutflowtracerslow-velocitygasSiOshockchemistry
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 argues that cyanoacetylene (HC3N), a molecule usually used to trace dense gas, can also serve as a practical tracer of protostellar outflows, and that it is especially good at detecting the slow-moving outflow gas that standard shock tracers such as SiO tend to miss. Working with ALMA data for 146 massive star-forming clumps from the ATOMS survey, the authors identify 45 outflows in HC3N (J=11–10), 44 of them bipolar and one explosive. They find that outflow detection does not correlate with the evolutionary stage of the host clump, which they interpret as HC3N being an unbiased outflow tracer. The study also shows that HC3N outflows appear at low velocity more often than SiO outflows in the same fields, and that HC3N can additionally pick up fast, collimated jet-like flows in a subset of sources.

What carries the argument

The machinery has three parts. First, the velocity range of the ambient cloud is defined by a single Gaussian fit to the optically thin H13CO+ (J=1–0) line toward each dust core; HC3N emission outside $V_{\rm LSR} \pm {\rm FWHM}$ is treated as outflow wing emission. Second, outflow candidates are screened through moment-0/1/2 maps and position–velocity diagrams that must show elongated structure and a Hubble-law wedge. Third, HC3N column densities are computed pixel-by-pixel in LTE with $T_{\rm ex}=50$ K and a fixed HC3N/H2 abundance of $5\times10^{-9}$, from which masses, momenta, energies, dynamical times, and mechanical luminosities are derived for each lobe. The comparison with SiO outflows relies on the same ATOMS fields and includes Kolmogorov–Smirnov tests on lobe position angle, extent, and terminal velocity.

What would settle it

Take the 45 HC3N outflow hosts and inspect the H13CO+ (J=1–0) spectra for non-Gaussian wings or asymmetries; if any host shows outflow wings in H13CO+ within the adopted VLSR ± FWHM, then the claimed low-velocity HC3N component is partly an artifact of choosing too wide a cloud window.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that HC3N (J=11–10) emission can be used as a reliable complementary tracer of protostellar outflows in high-mass star-forming regions, with an advantage for the low-velocity components that carry much of the outflow mass and energy. In the ALMA-ATOMS sample of 146 clumps, the authors identify 45 outflow candidates (31 confirmed, 14 probable), derive their physical parameters from LTE, optically thin column densities, and compare them with SiO (J=2–1) outflows. The HC3N outflow lobes show nearly the same orientation, extent, and terminal-velocity distribution as SiO lobes, but a slightly larger fraction of HC3N lobes is found at low velocities; ten sources even show separate fast narrow and slow wide components in position-velocity diagrams. The derived outflow mass, momentum, and energy correlate moderately (Spearman ρ ≈ 0.4–0.6) with clump mass and bolometric luminosity, but show no correlation with the $L_{\rm bol}/M_{\rm clump}$ evolutionary-stage proxy. The authors conclude that HC3N can detect outflows at all evolutionary stages and is an unbiased tracer that complements SiO and other traditional outflow tracers.

Load-bearing premise

The cloud velocity window is fixed by a single Gaussian fit to H13CO+ (J=1–0), and all HC3N inside VLSR ± FWHM is excluded as cloud emission; if H13CO+ itself carries outflow wings, the window is too wide and the very slow outflow gas that the paper claims to detect is the first thing cut away.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Outflow surveys that include HC3N (J=11–10) can recover a larger share of the slow, massive gas that dominates outflow energetics.
  • HC3N can be used alongside SiO to separate slow wide-angle outflow components from fast collimated jets in the same source.
  • Because HC3N outflow detection does not correlate with clump evolutionary stage, surveys can use it to find outflows across a wide range of massive clumps without preselection.
  • Outflow mass, momentum, and energy scale with clump mass and luminosity, so HC3N-derived parameters can feed empirical calibrations of outflow feedback in high-mass star formation.
  • The 45-outflow catalog provides a new sample for follow-up in other tracers and for estimating outflow-driven feedback in the ATOMS clumps.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If HC3N indeed traces slow outflow components that SiO misses, combining the two tracers should raise the total measured outflow mass and momentum per source compared to SiO-only estimates; this is testable by re-deriving outflow parameters with combined masks.
  • The lack of correlation with evolutionary stage may reflect that HC3N is produced in shocks from grain-surface sputtering across a broad range of conditions; a chemical model prediction would be that HC3N abundance jumps by an order of magnitude in C-shocks regardless of protostellar age.
  • Because HC3N is rarer and more confined than CO, HC3N outflow surveys at moderate resolution could complement CO-based surveys in crowded or heavily contaminated regions, provided sensitivity is sufficient (the paper notes its own detection rate is sensitivity-limited).
  • The ten sources with both fast narrow and slow wide components suggest a two-wind geometry; high-angular-resolution follow-up of these ten could test whether the two components trace the jet and the entrained outflow as distinct kinematic structures.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. This paper presents a systematic search for molecular outflows in the HC3N (J=11-10) line toward 146 massive star-forming clumps from the ALMA-ATOMS survey. The authors identify 45 outflows (44 bipolar, 1 explosive) using wing emission outside a VLSR±FWHM interval set by a Gaussian fit to H13CO+ (J=1-0), with confirmation from moment maps and position-velocity diagrams. They derive outflow masses, momenta, energies, dynamical times, and related quantities under LTE, optically thin, and constant abundance assumptions, and compare the resulting catalog against an SiO (J=2-1) outflow catalog from the same survey. The paper argues that HC3N is a useful complementary outflow tracer, particularly for detecting low-velocity outflow components, and that outflow detection does not correlate with clump evolutionary stage.

Significance. If the central claims hold, this would be the first large-sample demonstration that HC3N can serve as an outflow tracer in massive star-forming regions, complementing SiO and CO by tracing slower, less contaminated gas. The paper provides a substantial catalog (Table 2) with derived parameters and identifies 10 sources with separate fast-jet and slow-wide components, which is of interest to models of jet- and wind-driven outflows. The analysis is systematic and uses public survey data, with clear figures and a reproducible methodology. However, the headline claim that HC3N is 'slightly better' at detecting low-velocity components rests on a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test that does not reach statistical significance (p=0.225), and the main comparison relies on an unpublished SiO catalog. The outflow parameter derivation also carries a large systematic uncertainty from the assumed HC3N/H2 abundance (spanning about a factor of 280 between literature values), which is acknowledged but not propagated. The paper's value is primarily as a catalog; its interpretive claims currently outrun the statistical evidence.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.1, §3.4] The outflow definition uses a single Gaussian fit to H13CO+ (J=1-0) to set VLSR±FWHM as the 'cloud component' and removes all HC3N emission within that range. The paper states that H13CO+ 'typically does not have contribution from outflowing material' but provides no diagnostic test of this assumption. If H13CO+ itself has non-Gaussian wings in shocked regions, the excluded interval is overestimated, and the slowest HC3N wing channels are discarded, which would bias the terminal velocities high and directly undermine the paper's specific claim that HC3N recovers low-velocity outflow components. Since the central claim of the paper depends on this masking choice, a quantitative test is needed; for example, comparing the H13CO+ profiles against single-Gaussian models in the outflow regions, or re-deriving outflow properties with an alternative cloud-velocity definition.
  2. [§4.2.2, Figure 9] The claim that HC3N traces lower-velocity components than SiO is supported by a KS test on the vlobe distributions with p=0.225, which does not reject the null hypothesis that the two samples are drawn from the same distribution at any conventional significance level. The cumulative fraction plot in Figure 9 (right) shows a visual offset, but the stated test does not establish a statistically significant difference. The authors should either apply a more sensitive test (e.g., a two-sample Anderson-Darling test or a comparison of the full velocity distributions with the masks taken into account) or, if the data support it, moderate the claim to 'no statistically significant difference, with a possible trend at low velocities'.
  3. [§4.1, Equations (10)-(15)] The derived outflow masses, momenta, and energies assume a single [HC3N/H2] abundance of 5×10^-9, while the cited literature values range from 1.4×10^-8 (Mendoza et al. 2018) to 5.1×10^-11 (Taniguchi et al. 2018b), a factor of about 280. This systematic uncertainty is not propagated into the catalog values in Table 2 or into the correlation analyses. Because the abundance factor is roughly constant across sources, the Spearman correlations with clump mass and luminosity may be insensitive to it, but the absolute values (and the direct comparison with Towner et al. 2024 in Figure 5) are not. The paper should at least provide a quantitative statement of how the assumed abundance and Tex affect the reported ranges in Table 1 and the slopes in Equations (10)-(15).
  4. [§4.2.2] The comparison with SiO outflows relies on a 'Baug et al. (private communication)' catalog that is not publicly available and is not described beyond the number of detected outflows (153). This makes the central comparison non-reproducible for other researchers. The SiO catalog should be published or otherwise made accessible, or the authors should re-run the comparison using a publicly available SiO outflow sample. At minimum, the paper must state the detection threshold and masking procedure used for the SiO catalog so that differences in sensitivity do not drive the reported comparison.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§3.3] There is a typo: 'adpoted' should be 'adopted' in the sentence preceding Equation (1).
  2. [Table 2] The formatting of Table 2 is dense and some entries are unclear (e.g., the superscript 'a' marks and the missing PA values for the explosive outflow lobes). Please clarify the meaning of blank cells and ensure the table is readable in the published version.
  3. [§4.2.1] The wording 'the KS-test do not provide enough evidence to claim the similarity' is imprecise; for p=0.087 the test does not reject the null hypothesis of identical distributions, so one should say 'no significant difference was detected' rather than 'a moderate difference is present'.
  4. [§3.1] The paper describes the explosive outflow in IRAS 15520-5234 as one outflow but Table 2 lists seven components O1-O7. Please clarify whether these are seven lobes of one explosive outflow or seven separately identified outflows, and how the opening angle and PV analysis treat them.
  5. [§3.4] The text says 'we assumed a mean inclination angle, θ, of 53.7°' and uses it to correct parameters with powers of sinθ and cosθ; please state explicitly that the quoted vlobe values in Table 2 are the observed (not inclination-corrected) terminal velocities, since the comparison in Figure 9 appears to use these values.
  6. [Throughout] The notation 'HC 3N' and 'HC3N' is used inconsistently. Please use a single convention throughout the text, tables, and figures.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: outflow parameters are measured from observed HC3N wing emission with literature-based abundance and temperature, not fitted to the claimed correlations; the unpublished same-group SiO benchmark is a verification caveat, not a circular step.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. Outflow identification (Sec. 3.1) starts from HC3N emission outside the VLSR±FWHM interval set by a Gaussian fit to H13CO+; the cloud velocity is an input, and the HC3N wings are independent observed data, so the low-velocity outflow claim is not equivalent to the input by construction. The outflow column density and parameters (Secs. 3.3–3.4) use fixed literature inputs—Tex = 50 K, [HC3N/H2] = 5e-9, mean inclination 53.7°, and standard LTE equations—rather than values fitted to the correlations later presented. The moderate correlations of Mout, Pout, and Eout with clump mass and luminosity (Sec. 4.1) are post-hoc empirical relationships, not used to define or select the outflows, so there is no fitted-input-called-prediction. The evolutionary-stage non-correlation claim is a null statistical result, not a self-fulfilling construction. The only notable dependence is the comparison with the SiO outflow catalog, which is an unpublished private communication from Baug et al., a coauthor group; this limits independent verification of the comparative low-velocity claim but does not make the HC3N derivation reduce to its own inputs. The paper itself acknowledges in Sec. 3.4 that 'low-velocity outflowing gas always mixes with the cloud component,' and the H13CO+ contamination concern raised in Sec. 3.1 is a real assumption/limitation, but it is a correctness risk, not a circularity. Overall, no specific equation is shown to be equivalent to its inputs, and the central outflow catalog is empirically derived.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. The main extras pulled in from outside are the adopted abundance, excitation temperature, and inclination angle, all of which are literature-based or assumed and directly scale the derived outflow parameters. The kinematic identification of outflows rests on observational assumptions about H13CO+ tracing only quiescent gas and on visual interpretation of moment maps and PV diagrams.

free parameters (3)
  • [HC3N/H2] relative abundance = 5e-9 (mean of 1.4e-8, 5.1e-11, 5e-10)
    Adopted in Sec 3.4 to convert HC3N column density to H2 mass; scales Mout, Pout, Eout linearly. Literature values span a factor of about 280, so this is a dominant systematic uncertainty.
  • Excitation temperature Tex = 50 K
    Assumed constant for all outflowing gas in column density calculation (Sec 3.3 and 3.4); authors estimate up to about 50 percent uncertainty for Tex ranging from 20 to 100 K.
  • Mean inclination angle theta = 53.7 degrees
    Assumed mean inclination to correct outflow parameters for projection (Sec 3.4); correction factors 1/sin theta and related terms are applied to lobe length, momentum, energy, and timescales.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption HC3N emission is optically thin and in LTE, so column density follows Eq. 1.
    Sec 3.3 states this assumption; if violated, column densities and all derived outflow parameters are biased.
  • domain assumption H13CO+ (J=1-0) traces only the quiescent cloud velocity and has no outflow contribution; a single Gaussian fit defines Vlsr and cloud FWHM.
    Sec 3.1: wing velocity ranges are defined as outside Vlsr +- FWHM; outflow channels outside this range are the entire basis for outflow detection.
  • domain assumption Outflow candidates are validated by visual inspection of moment maps and PV diagrams, with 'Hubble law' velocity structure as outflow signature.
    Sec 3.1: only elongated high velocity features with Hubble-law wedges are accepted; this is a morphological criterion, not a quantitative model, and 14 of 45 outflows are only 'Probable'.
  • domain assumption Clump masses and bolometric luminosities from Liu et al. (2020) are reliable.
    Sec 4.1 uses these to derive correlations and the evolutionary stage proxy Lbol/Mclump.
  • domain assumption Lbol/Mclump is a valid proxy for evolutionary stage of massive clumps.
    Sec 4.1 uses this proxy to claim that HC3N outflows are unbiased with respect to evolutionary stage.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The ALMA-ATOMS Survey: Exploring Protostellar Outflows in HC$_3$N." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7QDGLT2H

@misc{pith2026250504164,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The ALMA-ATOMS Survey: Exploring Protostellar Outflows in HC$_3$N},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7QDGLT2H}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.04164}
}
abstract

We present the first systematic study of bipolar outflows using HC$_3$N as a tracer in a sample of 146 massive star-forming regions from ALMA-ATOMS survey. Protostellar outflows arise at the initial stage of star formation as a consequence of active accretion. In general, these outflows play a pivotal role in regulating the star formation processes by injecting energetic material in the parent molecular clouds. In such process, lower velocity components of outflows contain a significant portion of the energy. However, extraction of those component is difficult as the corresponding gas is often mixed with that of the ambient cloud. In our sample, we identified 44 bipolar outflows and one explosive outflow in HC$_3$N (J=11--10). The host clumps of these outflows are found to be at different evolutionary stages, suggesting that outflows in HC$_3$N are detectable in different stages of star formation. Also, the non-correlation of HC$_3$N outflows with clump evolutionary stages suggests that HC$_3$N is an unbiased tracer of outflows. Analyses revealed that HC$_3$N performs slightly better in detecting low-velocity components of outflows than traditionally employed tracers like SiO. The derived outflow parameters (i.e outflow mass, momentum, and energy) show moderate correlations with clump mass and luminosity. Our analysis of outflow opening angles and position-velocity diagrams across the outflow lobes show that, HC$_3$N is not only a good tracer of low-velocity outflows, but can also detect high-velocity collimated outflows. Overall, this study indicates that HC$_3$N can be used as a complementary outflow tracer along with the traditionally known outflow tracers, particularly in the detection of the low-velocity components of outflows.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.04164 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Normalized HC3N spectra integrated over the ALMA field of view (in black dashed line) for three target regions. The normalized H13CO+ spectra (in green) along the cores and the corresponding Gaussian fits (in magenta curve) are also overlaid on the spectra. The red and blue lines represent Vlsr±FWHM of the Gaussian fit, respectively. The local standard of rest velocity (Vlsr) of the host core is also quoted in each … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Example of a bipolar outflow in IRAS 15557-5215 region. The top panels show the moment-0 map (left) and moment-1 map (right) of HC3N line. The outflow axis is represented by thin blue (for blue-shifted lobe) and red arrows (for red-shifted lobe) in the moment maps, and the position of 3 mm dust continuum core (host core) is marked with a yellow ellipse. The red-shifted and blue-shifted components of the emission are… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The blue line shows the variation of column density (N(HC3N)) with excitation temperature (Tex). The dashed black line shows the adopted value of the column density obtained by adopting a temperature of 50 K. The red arrows indicate the percentage of increase or decrease in column density if the temperature is 30 K or 70 K, respectively. 3.5. Outflow Opening Angle The collimation of outflowing gas (measured as outfl… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (Left) Scatter plot between outflow opening angle (ϕ) and terminal velocity (vlobe). The black and cyan squares represent the outflows associated and not associated with UCHII emissions, respectively. A representative error bar is added at the bottom right corner. (Rig…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (Top) Variation of Outflow mass (Mout), momentum (Pout) and energy (Eout) with clump luminosity (Lbol). (Bottom) Variation of Mout, Pout and Eout with the mass of the clumps (Mclump). The red squares in each panel indicate the outflow parameters of our targets while th…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (Left) Scatter plot between outflow mechanical force (Fout) vs clump luminosity (Lbol). (Right) Scatter plot between outflow mechanical force (Fout) vs clump mass (Mclump). The red squares and gray circles in each panel represent outflow mechanical force from our targe…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Variation of Outflow mass (Mout), momentum (Pout), energy (Eout) and mechanical force (Fout) with clump Lbol/Mclump ratio. The symbols are the same as they are in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (Left) Normalized HC3N (in black) and SiO (in red) spectra integrated over the ALMA field-of-view for the ATOMS sources. The green dashed line represents local standard of rest velocity (Vlsr) of the ATOMS sources. The blue and red-shaded regions indicate the velocity …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: (Left) Comparison of Llobe with vlobe for outflows identified using HC3N (in red) and SiO (in cyan). (Right) Distribution of cumulative fraction of vlobe of outflows detected in HC3N (in grey) and SiO (in orange). The red line indicates a cumulative fraction of 100%. (…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    K6 hKY]V䱃A oRf/P`QvSɼ &_ļz]Gu _lNެCh RP b[ puIS' ׯ O ݓN2m#' ^J&<jS# y <M jaF E

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    G., Borkin, M

    Arce, H. G., Borkin, M. A., Goodman, A. A., Pineda, J. E., & Halle, M. W. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 715, 1170, 10.1088/0004-637X/715/2/1170

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/715/2/1170 2010

  5. [5]

    G., & Goodman, A

    Arce, H. G., & Goodman, A. A. 2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 551, L171, 10.1086/320031

    work page doi:10.1086/320031 2001

  6. [6]

    G., & Sargent , A

    Arce , H. G., & Sargent , A. I. 2006, , 646, 1070, 10.1086/505104

    doi:10.1086/505104 2006

  7. [7]

    G., Shepherd , D., Gueth , F., et al

    Arce , H. G., Shepherd , D., Gueth , F., et al. 2007, in Protostars and Planets V, ed. B. Reipurth , D. Jewitt , & K. Keil , 245, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0603071

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0603071 2007

  8. [8]

    P., Tollerud , E

    Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille , T. P., Tollerud , E. J., et al. 2013, , 558, A33, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

Show all 78 references
  1. [9]

    1996, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 34, 111, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.astro.34.1.111

    Bachiller, R. 1996, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 34, 111, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.astro.34.1.111

    1996 doi

  2. [10]

    Bachiller, R., & Gutiérrez, M. P. 1997, The Astrophysical Journal, 487, L93, 10.1086/310877

    1997 doi

  3. [11]

    2016, , 54, 491, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023341

    Bally , J. 2016, , 54, 491, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023341

    2016 doi

  4. [12]

    2020, , 890, 44, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab66b6

    Baug , T., Wang , K., Liu , T., et al. 2020, , 890, 44, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab66b6

    2020 doi

  5. [13]

    2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 507, 4316, 10.1093/mnras/stab1902

    Baug, T., Wang, K., Liu, T., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 507, 4316, 10.1093/mnras/stab1902

    2021 doi

  6. [14]

    T., Gueth, F., Guilloteau, S., & Dutrey, A

    Beltrán, M. T., Gueth, F., Guilloteau, S., & Dutrey, A. 2004, A&A, 416, 631, 10.1051/0004-6361:20034123

    2004 doi

  7. [15]

    2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 436, 179, 10.1093/mnras/stt1559

    Benedettini, M., Viti, S., Codella, C., et al. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 436, 179, 10.1093/mnras/stt1559

    2013 doi

  8. [16]

    A., Snell , R

    Bergin , E. A., Snell , R. L., & Goldsmith , P. F. 1996, , 460, 343, 10.1086/176974

    1996 doi

  9. [17]

    J., Frank, A., Blackman, E

    Carroll, J. J., Frank, A., Blackman, E. G., Cunningham, A. J., & Quillen, A. C. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 695, 1376, 10.1088/0004-637X/695/2/1376

    2009 doi

  10. [18]

    F., Millar, T

    Chapman, J. F., Millar, T. J., Wardle, M., Burton, M. G., & Walsh, A. J. 2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 394, 221

    2009

  11. [19]

    A., Charnley, S

    Cordiner, M. A., Charnley, S. B., Wirström, E. S., & Smith, R. G. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 744, 131, 10.1088/0004-637X/744/2/131

    2012 doi

  12. [20]

    M., Arce, H

    Dunham, M. M., Arce, H. G., Mardones, D., et al. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 783, 29, 10.1088/0004-637X/783/1/29

    2014 doi

  13. [21]

    2024, , 167, 72, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad152b

    Dutta , S., Lee , C.-F., Johnstone , D., et al. 2024, , 167, 72, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad152b

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    1997, The Astrophysical Journal, 489, 113, 10.1086/304782

    Fukuzawa, K., & Osamura, Y. 1997, The Astrophysical Journal, 489, 113, 10.1086/304782

    1997 doi

  15. [23]

    P., Hayashi , M., Gatley , I., Hasegawa , T., & Kaifu , N

    Garden , R. P., Hayashi , M., Gatley , I., Hasegawa , T., & Kaifu , N. 1991, , 374, 540, 10.1086/170143

    1991 doi

  16. [24]

    2019, radio-astro-tools/spectral-cube: v0.4.4 , v0.4.4, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.2573901

    Ginsburg , A., Koch , E., Robitaille , T., et al. 2019, radio-astro-tools/spectral-cube: v0.4.4 , v0.4.4, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.2573901

    2019 doi

  17. [25]

    , Merello, M

    Guerra-Varas, N. , Merello, M. , Bronfman, L. , et al. 2023, A&A, 677, A148, 10.1051/0004-6361/202245522

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    A., & Baug, T

    Guzmán Ccolque, E., Fernández-López, M., Zapata, L. A., & Baug, T. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 937, 51, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8c35

    2022 doi

  19. [27]

    E., Herbst, E., & Garrod, R

    Hassel, G. E., Herbst, E., & Garrod, R. T. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 681, 1385, 10.1086/588185

    2008 doi

  20. [28]

    A., & Ladd , E

    Hatchell , J., Fuller , G. A., & Ladd , E. F. 1999, , 344, 687

    1999

  21. [29]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 253, 2, 10.3847/1538-4365/abd0fb

    He, Y.-X., Henkel, C., Zhou, J.-J., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 253, 2, 10.3847/1538-4365/abd0fb

    2021 doi

  22. [30]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 880, 138, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1f8f

    Holdship, J., Viti, S., Codella, C., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 880, 138, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1f8f

    2019 doi

  23. [31]

    M., et al

    Izumi, N., Sanhueza, P., Koch, P. M., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 963, 163, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad18c6

    2024 doi

  24. [32]

    D., & Glassgold , A

    Langer , W. D., & Glassgold , A. E. 1990, , 352, 123, 10.1086/168519

    1990 doi

  25. [33]

    G., Stone , J

    Lee , C.-F., Mundy , L. G., Stone , J. M., & Ostriker , E. C. 2002, , 576, 294, 10.1086/341540

    2002 doi

  26. [34]

    2020, , 903, 119, 10.3847/1538-4357/abb81f

    Li , S., Sanhueza , P., Zhang , Q., et al. 2020, , 903, 119, 10.3847/1538-4357/abb81f

    2020 doi

  27. [35]

    2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 979, 17, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9275

    Liu, C.-F., Shang, H., Johnstone, D., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 979, 17, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9275

    2025 doi

  28. [36]

    J., et al

    Liu, H.-L., Liu, T., Evans II, N. J., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 505, 2801

    2021

  29. [37]

    2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 511, 4480

    Liu, H.-L., Tej, A., Liu, T., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 511, 4480

    2022

  30. [38]

    J., Kim , K.-T., et al

    Liu , T., Evans , N. J., Kim , K.-T., et al. 2020, , 496, 2790, 10.1093/mnras/staa1577

    2020 doi

  31. [39]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 909, 177, 10.3847/1538-4357/abde3c

    Lu, X., Li, S., Ginsburg, A., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 909, 177, 10.3847/1538-4357/abde3c

    2021 doi

  32. [40]

    López-Sepulcre , A., Codella , C., Cesaroni , R., Marcelino , N., & Walmsley , C. M. 2009, A&A, 499, 811, 10.1051/0004-6361/200912051

    2009 doi

  33. [41]

    Machida, M. N. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 796, L17, 10.1088/2041-8205/796/1/L17

    2014 doi

  34. [42]

    T., Moore, T

    Maud, L. T., Moore, T. J. T., Lumsden, S. L., et al. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 453, 645, 10.1093/mnras/stv1635

    2015 doi

  35. [43]

    P., Waters , B., Schiebel , D., Young , W., & Golap , K

    McMullin , J. P., Waters , B., Schiebel , D., Young , W., & Golap , K. 2007, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 376, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XVI, ed. R. A. Shaw , F. Hill , & D. J. Bell , 127

    2007

  36. [44]

    S., & Turner , J

    Meier , D. S., & Turner , J. L. 2005, , 618, 259, 10.1086/426499

    2005 doi

  37. [45]

    2018, , 475, 5501, 10.1093/mnras/sty180

    Mendoza , E., Lefloch , B., Ceccarelli , C., et al. 2018, , 475, 5501, 10.1093/mnras/sty180

    2018 doi

  38. [46]

    P., et al

    Molinari, S., Baldeschi, A., Robitaille, T. P., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 486, 4508, 10.1093/mnras/stz900

    2019 doi

  39. [47]

    , Pezzuto, S

    Molinari, S. , Pezzuto, S. , Cesaroni, R. , et al. 2008, A&A, 481, 345, 10.1051/0004-6361:20078661

    2008 doi

  40. [48]

    2021, , 923, 147, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2365

    Morii , K., Sanhueza , P., Nakamura , F., et al. 2021, , 923, 147, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2365

    2021 doi

  41. [49]

    E., Palmer , P., & Zuckerman , B

    Morris , M., Turner , B. E., Palmer , P., & Zuckerman , B. 1976, , 205, 82, 10.1086/154252

    1976 doi

  42. [50]

    M \"u ller , H. S. P., Thorwirth , S., Roth , D. A., & Winnewisser , G. 2001, , 370, L49, 10.1051/0004-6361:20010367

    2001 doi

  43. [51]

    2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 662, 395, 10.1086/517515

    Nakamura, F., & Li, Z.-Y. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 662, 395, 10.1086/517515

    2007 doi

  44. [52]

    2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 467, 2723, 10.1093/mnras/stx004

    Palau, A., Walsh, C., Sánchez-Monge, A., et al. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 467, 2723, 10.1093/mnras/stx004

    2017 doi

  45. [53]

    Pelletier , G., & Pudritz , R. E. 1992, , 394, 117, 10.1086/171565

    1992 doi

  46. [54]

    S., Shepherd , D

    Richer , J. S., Shepherd , D. S., Cabrit , S., Bachiller , R., & Churchwell , E. 2000, in Protostars and Planets IV, ed. V. Mannings , A. P. Boss , & S. S. Russell , 867, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9904097

    2000 doi arXiv

  47. [55]

    2012, APLpy: Astronomical Plotting Library in Python , Astrophysics Source Code Library

    Robitaille , T., & Bressert , E. 2012, APLpy: Astronomical Plotting Library in Python , Astrophysics Source Code Library. 1208.017

    2012

  48. [56]

    M., Foster , J

    Sanhueza , P., Jackson , J. M., Foster , J. B., et al. 2012, , 756, 60, 10.1088/0004-637X/756/1/60

    2012 doi

  49. [57]

    2009, , 61, 1055, 10.1093/pasj/61.5.1055

    Shimajiri , Y., Takahashi , S., Takakuwa , S., Saito , M., & Kawabe , R. 2009, , 61, 1055, 10.1093/pasj/61.5.1055

    2009 doi

  50. [58]

    Shirley, Y. L. 2015, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 127, 299, 10.1086/680342

    2015 doi

  51. [59]

    1994, , 429, 781, 10.1086/174363

    Shu , F., Najita , J., Ostriker , E., et al. 1994, , 429, 781, 10.1086/174363

    1994 doi

  52. [60]

    2000, SAOImage DS9: A utility for displaying astronomical images in the X11 window environment , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:0003.002

    Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory . 2000, SAOImage DS9: A utility for displaying astronomical images in the X11 window environment , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:0003.002

    2000

  53. [61]

    L., Loren , R

    Snell , R. L., Loren , R. B., & Plambeck , R. L. 1980, , 239, L17, 10.1086/183283

    1980 doi

  54. [62]

    , Bachiller, R

    Tafalla, M. , Bachiller, R. , Lefloch, B. , et al. 2015, A&A, 573, L2, 10.1051/0004-6361/201425255

    2015 doi

  55. [63]

    Tang, X. D. , Henkel, C. , Menten, K. M. , et al. 2018, A&A, 609, A16, 10.1051/0004-6361/201731849

    2018 doi

  56. [64]

    2019b, The Astrophysical Journal, 881, 57, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2d9e

    Taniguchi, K., Herbst, E., Caselli, P., et al. 2019b, The Astrophysical Journal, 881, 57, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2d9e

    doi

  57. [65]

    2018 a , , 866, 32, 10.3847/1538-4357/aadd0c

    Taniguchi , K., Miyamoto , Y., Saito , M., et al. 2018 a , , 866, 32, 10.3847/1538-4357/aadd0c

    2018 doi

  58. [66]

    K., & Minamidani , T

    Taniguchi , K., Saito , M., Sridharan , T. K., & Minamidani , T. 2018 b , , 854, 133, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa66f

    2018 doi

  59. [67]

    2019a, , 872, 154, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab001e

    ---. 2019a, , 872, 154, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab001e

    doi

  60. [68]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 844, 68, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7899

    Taniguchi, K., Saito, M., Hirota, T., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 844, 68, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7899

    2017 doi

  61. [69]

    M., Patel , N

    Torrelles , J. M., Patel , N. A., Curiel , S., et al. 2011, , 410, 627, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17483.x

    2011

  62. [70]

    Towner , A. P. M., Ginsburg , A., Dell'Ova , P., et al. 2024, , 960, 48, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0786

    2024 doi

  63. [71]

    A., van Dishoeck , E

    van Kempen , T. A., van Dishoeck , E. F., Hogerheijde , M. R., & G \"u sten , R. 2009, , 508, 259, 10.1051/0004-6361/200811099

    2009 doi

  64. [72]

    Velusamy , T., & Langer , W. D. 1998, , 392, 685, 10.1038/33624

    1998 doi

  65. [73]

    2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 735, 64, 10.1088/0004-637X/735/1/64

    Wang, K., Zhang, Q., Wu, Y., & Zhang, H. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 735, 64, 10.1088/0004-637X/735/1/64

    2011 doi

  66. [74]

    X., Zhang , J

    Wang , Y. X., Zhang , J. S., Yan , Y. T., et al. 2022, , 663, A177, 10.1051/0004-6361/202142450

    2022 doi

  67. [75]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 949, 89, 10.3847/1538-4357/acc83f

    Xie, J., Li, J., Wang, J., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 949, 89, 10.3847/1538-4357/acc83f

    2023 doi

  68. [76]

    2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 489, 4497, 10.1093/mnras/stz2431

    Yu, N., Wang, J.-J., & Xu, J.-L. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 489, 4497, 10.1093/mnras/stz2431

    2019 doi

  69. [77]

    I., Dewangan, L

    Zinchenko, I. I., Dewangan, L. K., Baug, T., Ojha, D. K., & Bhadari, N. K. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 506, L45, 10.1093/mnrasl/slab070

    2021 doi

  70. [78]

    I., Liu , S.-Y., Su , Y.-N., Wang , K.-S., & Wang , Y

    Zinchenko , I. I., Liu , S.-Y., Su , Y.-N., Wang , K.-S., & Wang , Y. 2020, , 889, 43, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5c18

    2020 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.