Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 29 references

Deuterated water abundance in the young hot core RCW 120 S2

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper reports an HDO abundance of 1.7e-9 toward the young hot core RCW 120 S2, placing it among the most water-depleted hot cores known, and argues the core is still in the early stage of protostellar heating with icy mantles not yet…

desk verdict A legitimate new HDO detection whose headline 'driest hot core' claim does not hold up until beam-filling is addressed. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.21945 v2 pith:7IVFEI6U submitted 2025-05-28 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA

Maria. S. Kirsanova , Anastasiia A. Farafontova This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GA
keywords HDOdeuteratedwaterhotcoreRCW120abundanceastrochemistryprotostellarheatingAPEXtelescope
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper's aim is to measure how much deuterated water (HDO) exists in the young hot core RCW 120 S2, in order to infer the total water content and the evolutionary stage of the core. Using APEX observations of two HDO lines, the authors derive an HDO column density of about 6e13 $cm^{-2}$ and an HDO abundance of 1.7e-9 relative to hydrogen nuclei, one of the lowest values reported for a hot core. Because the $H2^{18}$O line was not detected, they place an upper limit on water abundance of 3.2e-6, making RCW 120 S2 one of the most water-depleted hot cores, possibly the driest known. The authors conclude that the central young star has not yet heated the core enough to fully evaporate the icy mantles on dust grains, so the gas-phase water reservoir is still largely frozen.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the use of HDO and $H2^{18}$O as surrogate tracers for water, since the main water lines are blocked by Earth's atmosphere. The two detected HDO lines have upper-state energies 95 K and 437 K, so their ratio and absolute intensities, analyzed with a non-LTE radiative transfer code, pin down the HDO column density and temperature/density of the emitting gas. The abundance is obtained by dividing the HDO column density by the total hydrogen column density (3.7e22 $cm^{-2}$) from earlier work. The water upper limit comes from combining the 2-$\sigma$ non-detection of $H2^{18}$O with an assumed ortho-to-para ratio of 3 and the local 16O/18O isotopic ratio of 460. This chain of ratios — HDO/H nuclei and $H2^{18}$O-to-H2O scaling — carries the argument.

What would settle it

A high-angular-resolution observation of the 241 GHz HDO line toward RCW 120 S2 with an interferometer such as ALMA, resolving the source on sub-arcsecond scales, would measure the actual emitting size and column density; if the resolved HDO abundance (or a deeper $H2^{18}$O detection) raises the water abundance above the values seen in other hot cores, the claim that RCW 120 S2 is the driest known hot core would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that RCW 120 S2, a compact hot core at 1.3 kpc, has a very low gas-phase water abundance. Two HDO transitions (at 241 and 255 GHz) are detected and modeled with LTE and non-LTE radiative transfer, giving an excitation temperature around 286-308 K and gas density above 1e9 $cm^{-3}$, confirming the emission arises from hot core gas rather than the surrounding warm envelope. The best-fit HDO column density is 6.3e13 $cm^{-2}$ with a 3-$\sigma$ range 3.9-7.9e13 $cm^{-2}$, and the HDO abundance relative to hydrogen nuclei is 1.7e-9. The non-detection of the para-$H2^{18}$O 31,3-22,0 line yields an upper limit on water column density of 1.2e17 $cm^{-2}$ and water abundance of 3.2e-6, with HDO/H2O >= 5.3e-4. The authors argue this makes RCW 120 S2 one of the most water-depleted hot cores observed, possibly the driest, and interpret it as evidence that protostellar heating is still in an early phase, before icy mantles are fully evaporated.

Load-bearing premise

The HDO column density is derived from telescope-beam-averaged line intensities with no correction for the fact that the emitting hot core is likely much smaller than the 26-arcsecond beam, so the true column density and abundance could be higher than reported.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • RCW 120 S2 should be classified as a water-poor hot core, joining the small set of dry hot cores identified by past water surveys.
  • The measured HDO abundance of 1.7e-9 provides a new low-end data point for calibrating deuteration and water-formation models in high-mass star-forming regions.
  • The HDO/H2O lower limit of 5.3e-4 indicates a high degree of deuterium fractionation, consistent with chemistry inherited from cold prestellar conditions.
  • The non-detection of H2^18O implies that a substantial fraction of oxygen is not in gas-phase water, meaning other oxygen carriers must dominate the gas-phase oxygen budget in this core.
  • If the core is indeed early-stage, then CH3OH, CH3CN, and other complex organic molecules should show similarly low abundances, as previously found, supporting a young hot-core phase.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the measurements are beam-averaged over 26 arcseconds with no filling-factor correction, the true HDO column density toward the compact, ALMA-resolved multiple system is likely higher than reported; a high-resolution interferometric map would test whether RCW 120 S2 really is the driest hot core.
  • If water is genuinely depleted, the oxygen budget must be carried by species like CO, O2, or silicate dust; detecting gas-phase O2 or OH with future facilities would be a direct test.
  • The same two-line HDO method, using high-excitation transitions to isolate the hot core from the envelope, could be applied to other compact cores where beam dilution is a concern, providing a homogeneous sample of dry hot cores.
  • The inferred very early heating stage predicts that the ice mantles should still be detectable in absorption or through high ice-column features; infrared observations of the 3 micron water-ice band toward RCW 120 S2 would provide an independent check.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports APEX nFLASH230 observations of the hot core RCW 120 S2 in the 200-255 GHz range. Two HDO lines (241.56 and 255.05 GHz) are detected with good signal-to-noise, and the H2^18O 203.41 GHz line is not detected. Using LTE rotational-diagram and non-LTE RADEX analyses, the authors derive a kinetic temperature around 286-308 K, a gas density lower limit nH2 >= 1e9 cm^-3, and an HDO column density in the range (3.9-7.9)e13 cm^-2 with a most probable value of 6.3e13 cm^-2. Dividing by an independent hydrogen column density of 3.7e22 cm^-2, they obtain xHDO = 1.7e-9. The non-detection of H2^18O is converted into an upper limit xH2O <= 3.2e-6, and the paper concludes that RCW 120 S2 is one of the most water-depleted hot cores known, possibly the driest, implying early-stage protostellar heating with icy mantles not yet fully evaporated.

Significance. If the derived abundances are correct, this is a valuable data point: high-quality ground-based HDO detections with two transitions spanning Eu = 95-437 K are rare, and the combination of a firm HDO measurement with an independent H2^18O upper limit provides a genuine constraint on water deuteration and hot-core evolution. The analysis uses non-LTE radiative transfer with a bootstrap uncertainty estimate, and the comparison with literature abundance ranges is informative. The central quantitative claim, however, rests on an unquantified and likely small beam filling factor, because the 26-arcsec APEX beam at 0.17 pc is much larger than the compact multiple system revealed by ALMA. For this reason the headline 'driest known hot core' conclusion is not currently supported by the data as presented.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3] The beam filling factor is never quantified or corrected. Section 2 states that the spatial resolution is 26 arcsec (0.17 pc), while the Introduction notes that ALMA resolved RCW 120 S2 into a compact multiple system of five point sources. The RADEX analysis in Section 3 uses beam-averaged main-beam temperatures and implicitly assumes that the emitting region fills the beam (f = 1). For an optically thin line from a source of Gaussian size theta_s, the true column density is N_obs/f with f approximately theta_s^2/(theta_s^2 + 26 arcsec^2), so if the hot core is only a few arcseconds, N_HDO and xHDO could be one to two orders of magnitude higher. Whether xHDO and xH2O change depends on the effective beam of the N_H = 3.7e22 cm^-2 value taken from Plakitina et al. (2024), whose beam is not stated here. The paper therefore needs to either measure or adopt a filling factor with a clear justification, state the beam of the hydrogen column density, and re-derive the abundance and the 'driest known' claim under a conservative range of f. Without this, the central conclusion is not secure.
  2. [Section 3] The kinetic temperature is fixed to Tkin = 238 K based on an unpublished methanol analysis (Farafontova et al., in prep.) with no details or public reference. Earlier in the same section the RADEX fit gives Tkin = 308(+400/-218) K, i.e., essentially unconstrained, so fixing Tkin to an unpublished value is load-bearing for the derived N_HDO and its confidence intervals. The manuscript should either make the methanol analysis available, quantify how the N_HDO range changes when Tkin is varied over the full posterior, or present the 2D degeneracy results with Tkin left as a free parameter.
  3. [Abstract and Section 5] The abstract and conclusions disagree on the central numbers: the abstract gives N_HDO = 5.6e13 cm^-2 and xHDO = 1.5e-9, while Section 3 and Section 5 give a best-fit N_HDO = 6.3e13 cm^-2 and xHDO = 1.7e-9. Both versions are presented without cross-referencing the discrepancy. In addition, column densities are written with units cm^-3 in the abstract and conclusions, though the quantity is a column density and should be cm^-2. These inconsistencies make the quoted result look non-robust and must be corrected and unified in a revision.
  4. [Section 4] The derivation of the water abundance upper limit from the H2^18O non-detection needs to specify the excitation model, the assumed ortho-to-para ratio, and the filling factor used in converting the 2-sigma brightness limit into N_para-H2^18O. The current text jumps from the 2-sigma line intensity to N_para-H2^18O <= 6.6e13 cm^-2 with no explicit radiative-transfer or LTE formula. If a filling factor different from unity is adopted for HDO, the same factor must be applied self-consistently to the H2^18O limit, and the resulting xH2O ceiling and the comparison with the literature should be re-evaluated.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Section 5] The abstract and conclusions use 'cm^-3' for HDO and water column densities; these should be 'cm^-2'.
  2. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors, including 'Herchel' (Introduction), 'corino' (Introduction), and 'Specrtroscopic' (Table 1 caption). These should be corrected.
  3. [Figure 2 caption] The last line of the Figure 2 caption contains a stray '2' left over from the colorbar or label; it should be removed.
  4. [Section 2, Table 1] Table 1 mixes the frequency column header 'f' with the line frequency and fits; the units and column meanings should be clarified, and the H2^18O row should be marked as a non-detection in the table itself.
  5. [Section 3] The notation 'Tkin = 308400 218 K' appears to be a typesetting artifact; it should read '308(+400/-218) K' with a clear explanation of the error bars.
  6. [Section 4] The oxygen isotope ratio is quoted with a fitting formula from Wilson (1999), but the formula is introduced without a derivation or a reference to the exact equation; please clarify how the value 460 is obtained from the galactocentric distance of RCW 120.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the HDO abundance is a fitted measurement using independent hydrogen-column and temperature inputs.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained and non-circular. The HDO column density is obtained by fitting the observed APEX line intensities with LTE rotational-diagram and RADEX non-LTE radiative transfer, so it is a measured/fitted quantity, not a prediction from a model that already contains the answer. The abundance x_HDO = N_HDO / N_H uses a hydrogen column density from Plakitina et al. (2024), a published, independent analysis based on CH3OH, CH3CCH and CH3CN lines; it does not assume any HDO abundance, so the self-citation is not load-bearing in a circular sense. The fixed Tkin = 238 K from Farafontova et al. (in prep.) is also derived from methanol lines in the same dataset and is therefore an external constraint, not an input equivalent to the HDO result. The H2^18O non-detection upper limit on water abundance is an independent observable constraint. The beam-filling-factor issue and the abstract/body numerical discrepancies are systematic-uncertainty and internal-consistency concerns, not circularity: they do not make any equation reduce to its own inputs. No quoted step exhibits X derived from Y where X is defined in terms of Y.

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

The analysis rests on standard assumptions of LTE and RADEX radiative transfer, a beam filling factor of unity that is not justified for a likely sub-beam hot core, an adopted hydrogen column density from a previous study, and standard isotope ratios. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Tkin (excitation/kinetic temperature) = 286 K (LTE); fixed to 238 K in non-LTE
    Derived from the ratio of two HDO line intensities; the non-LTE fit leaves Tkin poorly constrained (broad 1-sigma interval), so the authors fix it to 238 K from a methanol analysis (Farafontova et al., in prep.).
  • N(HDO) column density = 5.6e13 to 6.3e13 cm^-2 (best fit)
    Fitted to the two HDO integrated intensities using RADEX; the body text reports 6.3e13 cm^-2 as best fit while the abstract reports 5.6e13 cm^-2.
  • n(H2) gas number density = ~1e11 cm^-3 (lower limit only)
    Fitted in RADEX but only a lower limit is obtained; the paper states n_H2 >= 1e9 cm^-3 is constrained.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The HDO emitting region fills the APEX beam (beam filling factor = 1).
    The analysis converts the main-beam temperature directly to column density without a filling factor correction; this is an implicit assumption since the hot core is likely smaller than the 26 arcsecond beam.
  • domain assumption The total hydrogen column density N(H) = 3.7e22 cm^-2 toward the YSO is adopted from Plakitina et al. (2024).
    This value is used as the denominator for the HDO abundance; if the HDO emission traces a different region than the N(H) measurement, the abundance is biased.
  • domain assumption The HDO transitions are optically thin (tau < 1).
    The LTE analysis assumes optically thin emission; the non-LTE RADEX result confirms low optical depths, so this is a result rather than a pure assumption, but it is used to justify the LTE approach.
  • domain assumption The ortho-to-para ratio for H2O is 3 and the oxygen isotope ratio 16O/18O = 460.
    These standard values are adopted to convert the H2^18O upper limit to a total water abundance; uncertainties in these ratios are not propagated.
  • domain assumption The distance to RCW 120 is 1.3 kpc (Russeil 2003).
    Used for the luminosity estimate and physical scale; the distance uncertainty (0.4 kpc) is not propagated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Deuterated water abundance in the young hot core RCW 120 S2." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7IVFEI6U

@misc{pith2026250521945,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Deuterated water abundance in the young hot core RCW 120 S2},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7IVFEI6U}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.21945}
}
abstract

Since the emission of water molecules cannot be observed from Earth, less abundant isotopologues, such as H$_2^{18}$O and HDO, are used to trace water in star-forming regions. The main aim of this study is to determine HDO abundance in the hot core RCW 120 S2. We performed observations of the hot core in the 200-255~GHz range using the nFLASH230 receiver on the APEX telescope. Two HDO lines were detected toward RCW 120 S2. Their intensities are described by excitation temperature $286\pm2$~K and gas number density $\geq 10^9$~cm$^{-3}$. The emission originates from the hot core rather than the warm dense envelope surrounding a central young stellar object. The HDO column density ranges from $(3.9-7.9)\times10^{13}$~cm$^{-3}$ with a most probable value $5.6\times10^{13}$~cm$^{-3}$. The HDO abundance relative to hydrogen nuclei is $1.5\times10^{-9}$. This HDO abundance value is among the lowest reported for hot cores. Combined with the non-detection of the H$_2^{18}$O line, we conclude that protostellar heating in RCW 120 S2 is still in its early stages.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.21945 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. HDO lines toward RCW 120 YSO S2 (black) and rms levels (red). Vertical line shows VLSR = −7 km s−1 . Two top panels show the fit by a single Gauss function and the residual spectrum after the fitting procedure. Two bottom panels show the fit by multiple Gauss functions and also the residual spectrum. of water lower than 10−6 by at least the order of magnitude. We will perform detailed chemical modeling after complet… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Results of non-LTE analysis for the HDO lines. The minimum of the χ 2 = 0.2 value is shown by a blue dot. The average minimum NHDO and nH2 values with their standard deviations found by the bootstrapping procedure are shown by a red symbol with error bars. CH3OH, CH3CCH 30 50 K CH3CN > 50 K > 100 K HDO [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Schematic of the RCW 120 S2 hot core (not to scale). There are at least three layers with different temperatures (indi￾cated above the star symbol), where particular molecules are ex￾cited within according to this study and Kirsanova et al. (2021); Plakitina et al. (2024). The dense warm envelope is shown in yel￾low and orange, but the hot core is shown in red colour. ing gas (see an example e. g. in Kirsanova et al… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Belitsky V., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201731883 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...611A..98B 611, A98

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731883 2018

  2. [2]

    Chavarr \' a L., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201015113 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A&A...521L..37C 521, L37

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201015113 2010

  3. [3]

    M., Herbst E., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/521014 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...668..294C 668, 294

    Cuppen H. M., Herbst E., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/521014 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...668..294C 668, 294

    doi:10.1086/521014 2007

  4. [4]

    Erb D., 2024, pybaselines: A Python library of algorithms for the baseline correction of experimental data, @doi 10.5281/zenodo.10676584 , https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10676584

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.10676584 2024

  5. [5]

    Faure A., Wiesenfeld L., Scribano Y., Ceccarelli C., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20081.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.420..699F 420, 699

    arXiv 2012

  6. [6]

    Figueira M., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629379 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...600A..93F 600, A93

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629379 2017

  7. [7]

    Figueira M., Bronfman L., Zavagno A., Louvet F., Lo N., Finger R., Rod \'o n J., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201832930 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...616L..10F 616, L10

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201832930 2018

  8. [8]

    F., Langer W

    Goldsmith P. F., Langer W. D., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/307195 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...517..209G 517, 209

    doi:10.1086/307195 1999

Show all 29 references
  1. [9]

    A ., Schilke P., Menten K., Cesarsky C., Booth R., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20065420 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A&A...454L..13G 454, L13

    G \"u sten R., Nyman L. A ., Schilke P., Menten K., Cesarsky C., Booth R., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20065420 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A&A...454L..13G 454, L13

    2006 doi

  2. [10]

    Herpin F., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201527786 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...587A.139H 587, A139

    2016 doi

  3. [11]

    M., Henkel C., Baudry A., Mauersberger R., Jewell P

    Jacq T., Walmsley C. M., Henkel C., Baudry A., Mauersberger R., Jewell P. R., 1990, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990A&A...228..447J 228, 447

    1990

  4. [12]

    V., Kurtz S., 2016, @doi [Astronomy Reports] 10.1134/S1063772916080047 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ARep...60..702K 60, 702

    Kalenskii S. V., Kurtz S., 2016, @doi [Astronomy Reports] 10.1134/S1063772916080047 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ARep...60..702K 60, 702

    2016 doi

  5. [13]

    S., Salii S

    Kirsanova M. S., Salii S. V., Kalenskii S. V., Wiebe D. S., Sobolev A. M., Boley P. A., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab499 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.503..633K 503, 633

    2021 doi

  6. [14]

    S., Pavlyuchenkov Y

    Kirsanova M. S., Pavlyuchenkov Y. N., Olofsson A. O. H., Semenov D. A., Punanova A. F., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3737 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.520..751K 520, 751

    2023 doi

  7. [15]

    S., et al., 2025, @doi [Phys

    Kirsanova M. S., et al., 2025, @doi [Phys. Usp.] 10.3367/UFNe.2024.08.039744 , 68

    2025 doi

  8. [16]

    K., De Lucia F

    Messer J. K., De Lucia F. C., Helminger P., 1984, @doi [Journal of Molecular Spectroscopy] 10.1016/0022-2852(84)90109-7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984JMoSp.105..139M 105, 139

    1984 doi

  9. [17]

    M \"u ller H. S. P., Thorwirth S., Roth D. A., Winnewisser G., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20010367 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001A&A...370L..49M 370, L49

    2001 doi

  10. [18]

    Oba Y., Watanabe N., Hama T., Kuwahata K., Hidaka H., Kouchi A., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/749/1/67 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...749...67O 749, 67

    2012 doi

  11. [19]

    M., Poynter R

    Pickett H. M., Poynter R. L., Cohen E. A., Delitsky M. L., Pearson J. C., M \"u ller H. S. P., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1016/S0022-4073(98)00091-0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998JQSRT..60..883P 60, 883

    1998 doi

  12. [20]

    V., Kirsanova M

    Plakitina K. V., Kirsanova M. S., Kalenskii S. V., Salii S. V., Wiebe D. S., 2024, Astrophysical Bulletin, 79, 235

    2024

  13. [21]

    Russeil D., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20021504 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A&A...397..133R 397, 133

    2003 doi

  14. [22]

    Sewi o M., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6de1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...933...64S 933, 64

    2022 doi

  15. [23]

    Tielens A. G. G. M., Hagen W., 1982, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982A&A...114..245T 114, 245

    1982

  16. [24]

    Van der Tak F. F. S., Black J. H., Sch \"o ier F. L., Jansen D. J., van Dishoeck E. F., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20066820 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A&A...468..627V 468, 627

    2007 doi

  17. [25]

    V., Jenkins C

    Wall J. V., Jenkins C. R., 2003, Practical Statistics for Astronomers. Cambridge Observing Handbooks for Research Astronomers, Cambridge University Press, @doi 10.1017/CBO9780511536618

    2003 doi

  18. [26]

    L., 1999, @doi [Reports on Progress in Physics] 10.1088/0034-4885/62/2/002 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999RPPh...62..143W 62, 143

    Wilson T. L., 1999, @doi [Reports on Progress in Physics] 10.1088/0034-4885/62/2/002 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999RPPh...62..143W 62, 143

    1999 doi

  19. [27]

    C., Helminger P., Cook R

    de Lucia F. C., Helminger P., Cook R. L., Gordy W., 1972, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevA.6.1324 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1972PhRvA...6.1324D 6, 1324

    1972 doi

  20. [28]

    F., Herbst E., Neufeld D

    van Dishoeck E. F., Herbst E., Neufeld D. A., 2013, @doi [Chemical Reviews] 10.1021/cr4003177 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ChRv..113.9043V 113, 9043

    2013 doi

  21. [29]

    F., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039084 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...648A..24V 648, A24

    van Dishoeck E. F., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039084 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...648A..24V 648, A24

    2021 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.