Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 7 minor 1 cited by

XRISM insights for interstellar Sulfur

T0 review · 2 major / 7 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 XRISM's high-resolution spectra of two distant X-ray binaries give the first unambiguous detection of interstellar SII K$\beta$ absorption at 2470.8$\pm$1.1 eV and yield a direct measurement of sulfur depletion: 40%$\pm$15% of…

desk verdict Solid new SII K-beta detection; the 40% depletion is a reasonable reading of the residuals but still leans on uncalibrated atomic shifts, and the paper says so. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.08751 v2 pith:RLRC5BV4 submitted 2025-06-10 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.HE

Lia Corrales , Elisa Costantini , Sascha Zeegers , Liyi Gu , Hiromitsu Takahashi , David Moutard , Megumi Shidatsu , Jon M. Miller
show 10 more authors
Misaki Mizumoto Randall K. Smith Ralf Ballhausen Priyanka Chakraborty Marua Diaz Trigo Renee Ludlam Takao Nakagawa Ioanna Psaradaki Shinya Yamada Caroline A. Kilbourne
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE
keywords interstellarsulfurX-rayabsorptionspectroscopySIIK-betalinedepletiondustFe-ScompoundsXRISMbinaries
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 reports the first unambiguous X-ray detection of interstellar atomic sulfur (SII) K$\beta$ absorption, seen in the spectra of two distant X-ray binaries, 4U 1630-472 and GX 340+0. The line appears at the same energy, 2470.8$\pm$1.1 eV, across two instruments, two targets, and different brightness states, which identifies it as interstellar rather than intrinsic to the sources. The authors also find that the best current atomic template for SII absorption must be shifted by +7 to 8 eV to match the data, exposing a gap in theoretical sulfur atomic physics. In the deepest spectrum, GX 340+0, absorption left over after removing the atomic SII component is matched by iron-sulfur dust templates (troilite, pyrrhotite, or pyrite), giving the first direct measurement of sulfur depletion in the interstellar medium: 40%$\pm$15% of interstellar sulfur is locked in dust. Because both sources lie about 11 kpc away on opposite sides of the Galactic disk, the authors suggest this depletion value may represent the Milky Way average.

What carries the argument

The carrier of the argument is K-shell photoabsorption spectroscopy of sulfur at roughly 2.45 to 2.5 keV, where inner-shell electrons of SII produce a strong K$\beta$ resonance plus Rydberg series and a K-shell edge. Because the absorption is imprinted on the X-ray continuum of background binaries, the line energy, equivalent width, and continuum edge strength measure the gas-phase sulfur column; residual structure after subtracting the atomic cross-section is attributed to solid sulfur-bearing dust, with Mie-theory absorption cross-sections for troilite, pyrrhotite, and pyrite converted from laboratory optical constants. The paper's central operation is fitting the observed spectra with a shifted SII template plus a dust template, then converting the fitted columns into a depletion fraction relative to the total sulfur column inferred from continuum absorption.

What would settle it

Measure the SII K-shell photoabsorption cross-section in the laboratory, or compute it with a fully converged method that reproduces the observed K$\beta$ position, then fit the XRISM spectrum of GX 340+0 with the corrected atomic template alone. If the residual near 2.485 keV disappears without any dust component, the solid-sulfur detection and the 40% depletion measurement are artifacts of the atomic template; if the residual persists, the dust identification stands. A second XRISM observation of another obscured X-ray binary at comparable signal-to-noise that fails to reproduce the same line position and residual pattern would also challenge the interstellar interpretation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that XRISM's resolving power makes interstellar sulfur visible in both its gaseous and solid forms along one sightline. The SII K$\beta$ resonance is detected at high significance and pinned at 2470.8$\pm$1.1 eV after including systematic uncertainties; its stability across datasets proves its interstellar origin. The most recent high-resolution SII absorption template, however, only fits after a +7 to 8 eV energy-scale shift, comparable to the spread among different atomic calculations, so the paper argues that published SII cross-sections need systematic energy correction. In GX 340+0, a 300 ks XRISM exposure reveals residual absorption that the atomic template cannot explain; templates for troilite, pyrrhotite, and pyrite fit the residuals equally well and yield the same solid sulfur column, allowing the authors to combine gas and solid measurements into the first direct measurement of sulfur depletion, 40%$\pm$15%. This also caps the fraction of interstellar iron in Fe-S compounds at <25%, consistent with earlier Fe L-shell studies.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that the residual absorption left after subtracting the shifted atomic SII template is really solid sulfur dust, and that troilite, pyrrhotite, and pyrite are the only relevant dust templates; if the atomic sulfur cross-section is wrong in its relative line strengths or has an energy-dependent shift, the dust detection and the 40% depletion fraction would not hold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The SII K$\beta$ resonance at 2470.8 eV becomes a fixed observational anchor for calibrating sulfur K-shell atomic models; future templates should reproduce it.
  • Sulfur depletion in the diffuse interstellar medium can now be measured directly from X-ray spectra, without relying on saturated ultraviolet lines or assumed abundance tables.
  • The 40%$\pm$15% depletion in GX 340+0, combined with the similar sightline to 4U 1630-472, implies that a substantial fraction of Milky Way sulfur is in solid form even along these low-density sightlines.
  • The <25% upper limit on iron in Fe-S compounds means most refractory iron must reside in other phases, such as oxides or silicates, which constrains models of interstellar grain mineralogy.
  • The observed +7 to 8 eV shift in the SII template indicates that current atomic cross-sections misplace sulfur resonances; correcting them may affect abundance measurements of sulfur and other elements in earlier and future X-ray studies.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the +7 to 8 eV shift is confirmed by laboratory measurements, similar systematic energy-scale offsets may be present in theoretical cross-sections for other K-shell ions, so re-analysis of archival X-ray spectra could reveal previously missed interstellar lines.
  • The paper's three Fe-S templates cannot be distinguished, which suggests sulfur K-shell X-ray absorption alone has limited sensitivity to the iron coordination environment; combining S K-edge with Fe L-edge absorption in the same sightline could break the degeneracy.
  • The 40% depletion value being obtained at roughly 11 kpc on opposite sides of the Galactic disk strengthens the case for extending this method to a larger sample of obscured X-ray binaries; if the value holds, Galactic chemical evolution models must allocate about 40% of interstellar sulfur to dust.
  • A direct test of the dust attribution would be a laboratory measurement of SII K-shell absorption with accurate energy calibration; if the cross-section's higher-order lines shift differently from K$\beta$, the residual near 2.485 keV could be atomic rather than solid sulfur.
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

2 major / 7 minor

Summary. This paper uses XRISM Resolve and archival Chandra HETG spectra to study interstellar sulfur K-shell photoabsorption toward two Galactic X-ray binaries, 4U 1630-472 and GX 340+0. The central observational result is a persistent absorption feature at 2470.8±1.1 eV (statistical plus systematic), identified as the SII Kβ line because its position is stable across two sources, two instruments, and multiple flux/accretion states, and because plausible photoionized-absorber contaminants (SXV, SiXIV) would need large, unphysical velocity shifts or are excluded by existing wind models. The centroid is measured with a template-independent Voigt fit. The authors further show that the SII absorption template of Gatuzz et al. (2024) must be shifted by +7 to +8 eV to match the data, a shift comparable to the spread among theoretical predictions (Palmeri et al. 2008; Witthoeft et al. 2011; FAC). In the 300 ks XRISM spectrum of GX 340+0, residual absorption near 2.485 keV is fit with Fe-S dust absorption templates (troilite, pyrrhotite, pyrite), which are mutually indistinguishable but give consistent S-in-dust columns. Combining gas and solid S yields a direct S depletion measurement of 40±15% toward GX 340+0 and an upper limit of <25% on Fe bound in Fe-S compounds. The authors suggest these ~11 kpc far-disk sightlines may represent the average Milky Way S depletion.

Significance. If the SII Kβ identification is correct, the measured centroid is an important observational anchor for sulfur K-shell atomic physics: no laboratory SII K-shell cross-sections exist, and theory predictions for the Kβ position differ by 5-10 eV. The demonstrated +7 to +8 eV energy-scale shift in the Gatuzz et al. (2024) template resolves a prior inconsistency in which X-ray fits gave SII <4% of the S column although SII is the dominant diffuse-ISM ion in UV studies. The gas-plus-dust decomposition toward GX 340+0, if it holds, is the first direct census of gaseous and solid S along one sightline and the first X-ray measurement of S depletion. The paper is commendable for its treatment of systematics: gain-calibration checks (pixel-30 gain jump, bright-source effects), pileup mitigation, explicit contamination checks against SXV and SiXIV lines, a template-independent centroid measurement, an internal consistency test (template-only S column equals the sum of the gas and dust columns), and unusually transparent statements of the atomic-template limitations and the forthcoming laboratory data.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4.3, §5, Tables 2–3, Fig. 1] The solid-S detection and the 40±15% depletion are headline results, and they depend entirely on attributing the residual absorption near 2.485 keV to Fe-S dust rather than to errors in the SII atomic template. The evidence for this attribution is not yet sufficient. The paper's only test of a non-uniform template error is a single −1 eV shift of the lines above 2.478 keV (§5). This test is too narrow in two respects. First, the perturbation size (1 eV) is far smaller than the 5-10 eV scatter among the theoretical predictions shown in Figure 1, and the paper neither quantifies the plausible range of relative line-placement errors nor scans that range. Second, in the gas+dust fit the Fe-S dust templates have structure across the same 2.47-2.49 keV region as the Kβ/Kγ complex, so the reported ΔC=2 improvement (versus ΔC=20 in the gas-only fit) and the statement that parameters are within 1σ do not demonstrate that the dust column is insensitive to atomic-model error; the dust template can simply absorb the shifted atomic structure. The −1 eV test therefore does not exclude the hypothesis that the residual is misplaced or mis-strengthened atomic SII lines. I recommend repeating the analysis with (i) relative shifts of the higher-order SII lines scanned over roughly ±5 eV, (ii) independent energy-scale shifts of each dust template (whose laboratory calibration the paper itself flags as uncertain in §4.3), and (iii) an explicit test of whether the dust column goes to zero within the allowed error range. If it can, the solid-S detection should be presented as tentative or as an upper limit, and the depletion claim must be re-scaled accordingly.
  2. [§4.3, Table 3, §5] The quoted depletion, 40±15%, does not include the dominant sources of systematic uncertainty in the gas/dust decomposition. The ±15% appears to reflect the statistical errors on the individual column densities and the small spread among the three compounds (37-42%) in Table 3. It does not propagate (i) the unknown relative positions and strengths of the SII Rydberg lines, (ii) the absolute energy-scale calibration of the laboratory dust cross-sections (a calibration the paper acknowledges in §4.3 is subject to re-evaluation), or (iii) the assumed grain-size distribution (power law with slope −3.5, sizes 0.005-0.25 µm) and the Mie-theory treatment used to build the dust templates. A concrete illustration of the problem is the paper's own finding that adding the dust templates shifts the best-fit SII template by about 0.5 eV relative to the gas-only fit (Table 2 versus Table 3); that shift directly repartitions flux between the Kβ line and the dust features, and its effect on the depletion is not included in the quoted uncertainty. I request an explicit systematic error budget for the depletion, or a table giving the depletion at the endpoints of the relevant template-shift and dust-calibration ranges, so that the headline value reflects the model dependence of the decomposition.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Table 1] In the two 4U 1630−472 XRISM rows, the K-edge position (2480.9 +3.1/−2.6 eV) and K-edge strength (0.184±0.008) are quoted to identical values in both flux states; if these were genuinely independent fits, identical values to the quoted precision are implausible, so please clarify whether the edge parameters were held tied between the states or report the separate fitted values.
  2. [§5 and Abstract] The suggestion that these two sightlines may represent the average S depletion of the Milky Way is a strong extrapolation from two lines of sight separated by only a few degrees on the sky (both near l≈336–339°, |b|≤0.3°, i.e., essentially one direction through the far disk); the paper should temper this claim or provide a sampling argument.
  3. [§5] The upper limit of <25% for Fe bound in Fe-S compounds depends on the assumed Fe/S abundance ratio: adopting Fe/S = 1.6 (the low end of the 1.6–2.5 range the paper cites) together with the troilite solid-S column yields a fraction near 25–26%, so the limit should be quoted as a function of the adopted reference abundance.
  4. [§3 and §4.4] The analysis cites several unpublished works for supporting numbers: Miller et al. (ApJL in review) for the 4U 1630−472 wind census, Eckart et al. (JATIS 2025, in prep) for the 1 eV gain systematic below 5.4 keV, and Ludlam et al. and Chakraborty et al. (in prep) for the GX 340+0 Z-track and wind analyses; please confirm these works are available, or state the key quantities independently in this paper.
  5. [Fig. 3 and Table 3] Figure 3 quotes ΔBIC while Table 3 and §5 quote ΔC (Cash statistic), making the reported improvements hard to compare; please state which statistic applies at each location.
  6. [Abstract and Table 1] The phrase 'high-signal detection ... in the spectrum of X-ray binaries 4U 1630-472 and GX 340+0' is stronger than the per-dataset significances for 4U 1630−472 suggest: the XRISM low-flux state gives N_SII = 64(+77,−50)×10^16 cm^-2, consistent with zero at roughly 1.3σ, so the detection toward that source is carried mainly by the combined HEG data; stating per-dataset significances would let the reader judge the strength of the two-source claim.
  7. [§4 heading, §4.1, §5] Please correct typographical errors: the §4 heading reads 'Fitting Methods and and Results' (duplicated 'and'), §4.1 contains 'V oigt' with a spurious space, and §5 uses unspaced 'SIItemplate'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the SII Kβ centroid and S depletion are empirical quantities fitted to data, with the template energy shift reported as a fitted result rather than used to define the measurement.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are observational measurements, not derivations from an input that already contains the output. The SII Kβ centroid at 2470.8 ± 1.1 eV is obtained from a Voigt-profile fit in Section 4.1 (Table 1), which is independent of the Gatuzz et al. (2024) theoretical template. The +7–8 eV template shift is itself a fitted result reported in Section 4.2 (Table 2) and is not used to define the measured line position; the two are compared as separate quantities. The depletion measurement (40% ± 15%) is computed directly from the fitted gas-phase SII column and the fitted solid-phase S column in Section 4.3 (Table 3), so it is a direct spectral decomposition rather than a quantity forced by construction. The attribution of residuals near 2.485 keV to Fe-S dust carries systematic risk because the SII atomic template is acknowledged to warrant improvements and no laboratory SII cross-sections exist, but that is a model-uncertainty concern, not circular reasoning: the paper explicitly tests a −1 eV shift of the higher-order lines and reports that gas+dust parameters remain within 1σ. Self-citations to prior work on dust templates and Fe L-shell studies are references to externally calibrated laboratory data and consistency checks, not load-bearing circular support. No step reduces, by equation or by self-citation chain, to its own inputs.

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

The paper introduces no new entities. Its central claims rest on theoretical and laboratory cross-sections, standard ISM assumptions, and several fitted or fixed model parameters. The +7 to 8 eV template shift is a fitted quantity that absorbs atomic-data errors; if future lab measurements change the SII K-shell structure, the column densities and depletion value would change accordingly.

free parameters (5)
  • SII template energy shift (Delta E) = 6.96 to 8.00 eV blue shift; combined GX 340+0 = 7.92 eV
    Fitted in every template fit (Tables 2 and 3) to align the theoretical SII cross-section with the observed K-beta line; central to the atomic-data comparison and to the gas-plus-dust decomposition.
  • Einstein A coefficient for SII K-beta = 1.77 x 10^12 s^-1 (average of Palmeri et al. 2008 and FAC)
    Chosen by averaging two theoretical values; scales the Voigt-profile column density and therefore the N_SII and depletion values. A 10% uncertainty is propagated.
  • Velocity dispersion (b) = 74 km/s
    Fixed from Milky Way HI observations; degenerate with the Voigt-profile column density. Changing it by about 30% changes the line strength by 10%.
  • Dust grain size distribution = MRN power-law slope -3.5, grain radii 0.005-0.25 micron
    Assumed for computing dust absorption cross-sections via Mie theory; affects the solid S column and the depletion estimate.
  • Solar abundance reference for S = 12-15 x 10^16 cm^-2 per (NH/10^22 cm^-2)
    Used to convert the measured S column to an implied H column and to frame the depletion fraction; the paper adopts a range from Wilms 2000, Lodders 2003, and Asplund 2021.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption SII is the dominant form of gas-phase S in the diffuse ISM along these sightlines.
    The identification of the 2470.8 eV feature as SII K-beta and the inference of SII columns rely on SII being the dominant ion, argued from UV abundance studies and ionization balance in Section 2.
  • domain assumption The shifted Gatuzz et al. (2024) R-matrix SII cross-section correctly reproduces the relative structure of SII K-shell absorption.
    The paper applies a +7 to 8 eV energy shift and then uses the shifted template to measure SII column densities; if the shape is also wrong, the derived columns are biased.
  • ad hoc to paper Residual absorption after the shifted SII template is due to solid S-bearing dust (troilite, pyrrhotite, or pyrite).
    The solid S interpretation and the depletion measurement are only as good as this template set; the paper explicitly cannot rule out Fe-free S solids or distinguish among the three minerals in Section 4.3.
  • domain assumption The 2470.8 eV absorption line is interstellar, not intrinsic to the X-ray binaries.
    Supported by persistence across sources, instruments, and flux states, and by checks against photoionized absorber line shifts in Section 4.4; this underpins the whole ISM interpretation.
  • domain assumption Dust grains are spherical with an MRN size distribution and can be treated with Mie-theory absorption cross-sections.
    Standard dust model assumption used in Section 4.3; the computed absorption per S atom feeds directly into the solid S column.
  • domain assumption Continuum model choices (powerlaw/diskbb, tbvarabs, xscat) do not significantly affect the S K-shell absorption features.
    The paper states in Section 4 that continuum details vary but the S K features are robust; this justifies focusing on the lines.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of XRISM insights for interstellar Sulfur." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RLRC5BV4

@misc{pith2026250608751,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: XRISM insights for interstellar Sulfur},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RLRC5BV4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.08751}
}
read the original abstract

The X-ray Imaging Spectroscopy Mission (XRISM) provides the best spectral resolution with which to study Sulfur (S) K-shell photoabsorption features from the interstellar medium (ISM). For the first time, we demonstrate the high-signal detection of interstellar atomic SII K-beta absorption in the spectrum of X-ray binaries (XRBs) 4U 1630-472 and GX 340+0. The persistence of this feature across multiple instruments, targets, and flux states implies that it is interstellar in nature. We measure the SII Kbeta line centroid at 2470.8 +/- 1.1 eV after including systematic uncertainties. We also find that the most recently published high resolution SII absorption template requires a systematic energy scale shift of +7-8 eV, which is comparable to the level of disagreement among various atomic modeling procedures. The XRISM 300 ks observation of GX 340+0 provides unprecedented signal-to-noise in the S K region, and we find evidence of residual absorption from solid S in the spectra of GX 340+0. Absorption templates from three Fe-S compounds, troilite (FeS), pyrrhotite (Fe_7S_8) and pyrite (FeS_2), provide equally good fits to the residuals. Even though we are not able to distinguish among these three compounds, they provide equal estimates for the abundance of S locked in dust grains. Having accounted for both the gaseous and solid S in the GX 340+0 sightline provides us with a direct measurement of S depletion, which is 40% +/- 15%. Our depletion measurement provides an upper limit to the fraction of interstellar Fe bound in Fe-S compounds of < 25%, which is consistent with prior studies of Fe-S compounds via Fe L-shell absorption. Both XRBs in this study are at a distance of approximately 11 kpc and on the opposite side of the Galactic disk, suggesting that this value could represent the average S depletion of the Milky Way when integrated across all phases of the ISM.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.08751 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Predicted absorption cross-sections of atomic SI (top) and SII (bottom). Gatuzz et al. (2024) provides the most detailed state-of-the-art cross-section templates available (grey). The overlaid vertical lines give predictions for the S Kβ lines of each ion from Palmeri et al. (2008), the Flexible Atomic Code (FAC) and Witthoeft et al. (2011). In all cases, the predictions for the position of the Kβ features differ by… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Top: The Gatuzz et al. (2024) SII cross-section with a 7.92 eV blueshift, matching the best fit energy shift for the combined XRISM data. The absorption cross-section templates for three Fe-S compounds used in this work, troilite (FeS, blue), pyrite (FeS2, orange) and pyrrhotite (Fe7S8, green), are overlaid for reference. Bottom: The measured position of the Kβ feature (black) and XSPEC edge model position (red) for… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Three simultaneous fits to the two XRISM observations for S K-shell photoelectric absorption in the sight line of GX 340+0 with increasing model complexity. The spectra are evaluated separately but plotted as a combined spectrum for visual clarity. (Top:) A parametric description of SII absorption using a Voigt profile for the Kβ absorption line and the XSPEC edge model for the photoelectric absorption continuum. (M… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. The Structure of the Relativistic Fe Line in GX 340+0 as Viewed with XRISM/Resolve, NICER, and NuSTAR

    astro-ph.HE 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The Fe K line of GX 340+0 shows a dual-peaked structure with residual narrow emission features at the ~5% level that RELXILLNS reflection modeling alone does not reproduce.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

92 extracted references · 71 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    2005, PASJ, 57, 629,

    Abe, Y ., Fukazawa, Y ., Kubota, A., Kasama, D., & Makishima, K. 2005, PASJ, 57, 629,

    2005

  2. [2]

    Arnaud, K. A. 1996, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference

    1996

  3. [3]

    M., & Grevesse, N

    Asplund, M., Amarsi, A. M., & Grevesse, N. 2021, A&A, 653, A141,

    2021

  4. [4]

    Belloni, T. M. 2010, in Lecture Notes in Physics, Berlin Springer Verlag, ed. T. Belloni, V ol. 794, 53

    2010

  5. [5]

    2002, Spectrochimica Acta - Part B: Atomic Spectroscopy, 57, 711,

    Bonnin-Mosbah, M., Métrich, N., Susini, J., et al. 2002, Spectrochimica Acta - Part B: Atomic Spectroscopy, 57, 711,

    2002

  6. [6]

    2010, in Lecture Notes in Physics, Berlin Springer Verlag, ed

    Bradley, J. 2010, in Lecture Notes in Physics, Berlin Springer Verlag, ed. T. Henning, V ol. 815, 259–276

    2010

  7. [7]

    M., Miller, J

    Cackett, E. M., Miller, J. M., Ballantyne, D. R., et al. 2010, ApJ, 720, 205,

    2010

  8. [8]

    2016, MNRAS, 462, S253,

    Calmonte, U., Altwegg, K., Balsiger, H., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 462, S253,

    2016

Show all 92 references
  1. [9]

    I., & Herbst, E

    Caselli, P., Hasegawa, T. I., & Herbst, E. 1994, ApJ, 421, 206,

    1994

  2. [10]

    M., et al

    Cazaux, S., Carrascosa, H., Muñoz Caro, G. M., et al. 2022, A&A, 657, A100,

    2022

  3. [11]

    Charnley, S. B. 1997, ApJ, 481, 396,

    1997

  4. [12]

    2024, MNRAS, 528, 6167,

    Chattopadhyay, S., Bhulla, Y ., Misra, R., & Mandal, S. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 6167,

    2024

  5. [13]

    V ., Gatuzz, E., et al

    Corrales, L., Gotthelf, E. V ., Gatuzz, E., et al. 2024, ApJ, 965, 172,

    2024

  6. [14]

    R., García, J., Wilms, J., & Baganoff, F

    Corrales, L. R., García, J., Wilms, J., & Baganoff, F. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 1345,

    2016

  7. [15]

    2022, in Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics, ed

    Costantini, E., & Corrales, L. 2022, in Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics, ed. C. Bambi & A. Sangangelo, 40

    2022

  8. [16]

    T., Rogantini, D., et al

    Costantini, E., Zeegers, S. T., Rogantini, D., et al. 2019, A&A, 629, A78, Díaz Trigo, M., Miller-Jones, J. C. A., Migliari, S., Broderick, J. W., &

    2019

  9. [17]

    2013, Nature, 504, 260,

    Tzioumis, T. 2013, Nature, 504, 260,

    2013

  10. [18]

    M., & Lockman, F

    Dickey, J. M., & Lockman, F. J. 1990, ARA&A, 28, 215, Dinçer, T., Kalemci, E., Tomsick, J. A., Buxton, M. M., & Bailyn, C. D. 2014, ApJ, 795, 74,

    1990

  11. [19]

    Draine, B. T. 2011, Physics of the Interstellar and Intergalactic Medium

    2011

  12. [20]

    2024, A&A, 685, A82,

    Edenhofer, G., Zucker, C., Frank, P., et al. 2024, A&A, 685, A82,

    2024

  13. [21]

    S., et al

    Foster, A., Smith, R., Brickhouse, N. S., et al. 2018, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, V ol. 231, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts #231, 253.03

    2018

  14. [22]

    G., Caselli, P., et al

    Fuente, A., Navarro, D. G., Caselli, P., et al. 2019, A&A, 624, A105,

    2019

  15. [23]

    2023, A&A, 670, A114,

    Fuente, A., Rivière-Marichalar, P., Beitia-Antero, L., et al. 2023, A&A, 670, A114,

    2023

  16. [24]

    2024, A&A, 687, A87,

    Fuente, A., Roueff, E., Le Petit, F., et al. 2024, A&A, 687, A87,

    2024

  17. [25]

    Gatuzz, E., Díaz Trigo, M., Miller-Jones, J. C. A., & Migliari, S. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 2597,

    2019

  18. [26]

    W., Hasoglu, M

    Gatuzz, E., Gorczyca, T. W., Hasoglu, M. F., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 1648,

    2024

  19. [27]

    2013, ApJ, 768, 60,

    Gatuzz, E., García, J., Mendoza, C., et al. 2013, ApJ, 768, 60,

    2013

  20. [28]

    2003, A&A, 410, 217,

    Gilfanov, M., Revnivtsev, M., & Molkov, S. 2003, A&A, 410, 217,

    2003

  21. [29]

    Gorczyca, T. W. 2000, Phys. Rev. A, 61, 024702,

    2000

  22. [30]

    S., & Zolensky, M

    Hanner, M. S., & Zolensky, M. E. 2010, in Lecture Notes in Physics, Berlin Springer Verlag, ed. T. Henning, V ol. 815, 203–232

    2010

  23. [31]

    A., Millar, T

    Hatchell, J., Thompson, M. A., Millar, T. J., & MacDonald, G. H. 1998, A&A, 338, 713

    1998

  24. [32]

    2016, ApJ, 825, 15,

    Heinz, S., Corrales, L., Smith, R., et al. 2016, ApJ, 825, 15,

    2016

  25. [33]

    2015, ApJ, 806, 265,

    Heinz, S., Burton, M., Braiding, C., et al. 2015, ApJ, 806, 265,

    2015

  26. [34]

    2022, A&A, 658, A168,

    Hily-Blant, P., Pineau des Forêts, G., Faure, A., & Lique, F. 2022, A&A, 658, A168,

    2022

  27. [35]

    C., Davis, J

    Houck, J. C., Davis, J. E., Huenemoerder, D., et al. 2013, ISIS: Interactive Spectral Interpretation System for High Resolution X-Ray Spectroscopy, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1302.002

    2013

  28. [36]

    C., Sembach, K

    Howk, J. C., Sembach, K. R., & Savage, B. D. 2006, ApJ, 637, 333,

    2006

  29. [37]

    P., Mitschang, A., Dewey, D., et al

    Huenemoerder, D. P., Mitschang, A., Dewey, D., et al. 2011, AJ, 141, 129,

    2011

  30. [38]

    Huxtable, R. J. 1986, Biochemistry of sulfur (New York: Springer)

    1986

  31. [39]

    Jenkins, E. B. 2009, ApJ, 700, 1299, Jiménez-Escobar, A., & Muñoz Caro, G. M. 2011, A&A, 536, A91, Jiménez-Escobar, A., Muñoz Caro, G. M., & Chen, Y . J. 2014, MNRAS, 443, 343,

    2009

  32. [40]

    M., Schulz, N

    Juett, A. M., Schulz, N. S., & Chakrabarty, D. 2004, ApJ, 612, 308,

    2004

  33. [41]

    S., Mewe, R., & Nieuwenhuijzen, H

    Kaastra, J. S., Mewe, R., & Nieuwenhuijzen, H. 1996, in UV and X-ray Spectroscopy of Astrophysical and Laboratory Plasmas, ed. K. Yamashita & T. Watanabe, 411–414

    1996

  34. [42]

    Kalberla, P. M. W., Burton, W. B., Hartmann, D., et al. 2005, A&A, 440, 775,

    2005

  35. [43]

    Kalberla, P. M. W., & Kerp, J. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 27,

    2009

  36. [44]

    A., et al

    Kalemci, E., Dinçer, T., Tomsick, J. A., et al. 2013, ApJ, 779, 95,

    2013

  37. [45]

    J., & Tomsick, J

    Kalemci, E., Maccarone, T. J., & Tomsick, J. A. 2018, ApJ, 859, 88,

    2018

  38. [46]

    S., et al

    Kama, M., Shorttle, O., Jermyn, A. S., et al. 2019, ApJ, 885, 114,

    2019

  39. [47]

    L., Walton, D

    King, A. L., Walton, D. J., Miller, J. M., et al. 2014, ApJL, 784, L2,

    2014

  40. [48]

    1998, ApJ, 494, 753,

    Kuulkers, E., Wijnands, R., Belloni, T., et al. 1998, ApJ, 494, 753,

    1998

  41. [49]

    C., & Caselli, P

    Laas, J. C., & Caselli, P. 2019, A&A, 624, A108,

    2019

  42. [50]

    2003, ApJ, 591, 1220,

    Lodders, K. 2003, ApJ, 591, 1220,

    2003

  43. [51]

    2009, Meteoritics and Planetary Science Supplement, 72, 5154

    Lodders, K., & Palme, H. 2009, Meteoritics and Planetary Science Supplement, 72, 5154

    2009

  44. [52]

    J., & Coppi, P

    Maccarone, T. J., & Coppi, P. S. 2003, MNRAS, 338, 189,

    2003

  45. [53]

    J., Reynolds, R

    Madsen, G. J., Reynolds, R. J., & Haffner, L. M. 2006, ApJ, 652, 401,

    2006

  46. [54]

    Mann, I., & Jessberger, E. K. 2010, in Lecture Notes in Physics, Berlin Springer Verlag, ed. T. Henning, V ol. 815, 233–257 Martín-Hernández, N. L., Peeters, E., Morisset, C., et al. 2002, A&A, 381, 606,

    2010

  47. [55]

    S., Rumpl, W., & Nordsieck, K

    Mathis, J. S., Rumpl, W., & Nordsieck, K. H. 1977, ApJ, 217, 425,

    1977

  48. [56]

    S., & Kallman, T

    Mehdipour, M., Kaastra, J. S., & Kallman, T. 2016, A&A, 596, A65,

    2016

  49. [57]

    W., Margon, B., & Burton, M

    Miller, B. W., Margon, B., & Burton, M. G. 1993, AJ, 106, 28,

    1993

  50. [58]

    M., Raymond, J., Cackett, E., Grinberg, V ., & Nowak, M

    Miller, J. M., Raymond, J., Cackett, E., Grinberg, V ., & Nowak, M. 2016, ApJL, 822, L18,

    2016

  51. [59]

    1995, ApJL, 442, L13,

    Miyamoto, S., Kitamoto, S., Hayashida, K., & Egoshi, W. 1995, ApJL, 442, L13,

    1995

  52. [60]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.03283,

    Mizumoto, M., Tamba, T., Tsujimoto, M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.03283,

    2025 arXiv

  53. [61]

    2014, ApJL, 784, L5,

    Neilsen, J., Coriat, M., Fender, R., et al. 2014, ApJL, 784, L5,

    2014

  54. [62]

    A., Godard, B., Gerin, M., et al

    Neufeld, D. A., Godard, B., Gerin, M., et al. 2015, A&A, 577, A49,

    2015

  55. [63]

    Olson, K. R. 2021, Comparitive Biochemistry and Physiology Part A: Molecular & Integrative Physiology„ 252, 110824

    2021

  56. [64]

    1974, ApJ, 187, 231,

    Oppenheimer, M., & Dalgarno, A. 1974, ApJ, 187, 231,

    1974

  57. [65]

    2008, ApJS, 177, 408,

    Palmeri, P., Quinet, P., Mendoza, C., et al. 2008, ApJS, 177, 408,

    2008

  58. [66]

    E., Geballe, T

    Palumbo, M. E., Geballe, T. R., & Tielens, A. G. G. M. 1997, ApJ, 479, 839,

    1997

  59. [67]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 10697,

    Perrero, J., Beitia-Antero, L., Fuente, A., Ugliengo, P., & Rimola, A. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 10697,

    2024

  60. [68]

    2023, A&A, 670, A30,

    Psaradaki, I., Costantini, E., Rogantini, D., et al. 2023, A&A, 670, A30,

    2023

  61. [69]

    2024, AJ, 167, 217,

    Psaradaki, I., Corrales, L., Werk, J., et al. 2024, AJ, 167, 217,

    2024

  62. [70]

    2024, ApJ, 975, 174, Rivière-Marichalar, P., Fuente, A., Goicoechea, J

    Rey-Montejo, M., Jiménez-Serra, I., Martín-Pintado, J., et al. 2024, ApJ, 975, 174, Rivière-Marichalar, P., Fuente, A., Goicoechea, J. R., et al. 2019, A&A, 628, A16,

    2024

  63. [71]

    T., et al

    Rogantini, D., Costantini, E., Zeegers, S. T., et al. 2018, A&A, 609, A22,

    2018

  64. [72]

    D., & Sembach, K

    Savage, B. D., & Sembach, K. R. 1996, ApJ, 470, 893,

    1996

  65. [73]

    2013, ApJ, 766, 63,

    Seifina, E., Titarchuk, L., & Frontera, F. 2013, ApJ, 766, 63,

    2013

  66. [74]

    N., Lamberts, T., Laas, J

    Shingledecker, C. N., Lamberts, T., Laas, J. C., et al. 2020, ApJ, 888, 52,

    2020

  67. [75]

    Smith, R. G. 1991, MNRAS, 249, 172,

    1991

  68. [76]

    K., Valencic, L

    Smith, R. K., Valencic, L. A., & Corrales, L. 2016, ApJ, 818, 143,

    2016

  69. [77]

    J., Cardelli, J

    Sofia, U. J., Cardelli, J. A., & Savage, B. D. 1994, ApJ, 430, 650,

    1994

  70. [78]

    Tieftrunk, A., Pineau des Forets, G., Schilke, P., & Walmsley, C. M. 1994, A&A, 289, 579

    1994

  71. [79]

    A., Corbel, S., Goldwurm, A., & Kaaret, P

    Tomsick, J. A., Corbel, S., Goldwurm, A., & Kaaret, P. 2005, ApJ, 630, 413, 10Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan(2024), Vol. 00, No. 0

    2024

  72. [80]

    A., Yamaoka, K., Corbel, S., et al

    Tomsick, J. A., Yamaoka, K., Corbel, S., et al. 2014, ApJ, 791, 70,

    2014

  73. [81]

    M., Kaastra, J., et al

    Trueba, N., Miller, J. M., Kaastra, J., et al. 2019, ApJ, 886, 104, van der Tak, F. F. S., Boonman, A. M. S., Braakman, R., & van Dishoeck, E. F. 2003, A&A, 412, 133,

    2019

  74. [82]

    2018, MNRAS, 478, 5514,

    Vastel, C., Quénard, D., Le Gal, R., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 5514,

    2018

  75. [83]

    A., & Yakovlev, D

    Verner, D. A., & Yakovlev, D. G. 1995, A&AS, 109, 125

    1995

  76. [84]

    W., & Williams, D

    Viti, S., Caselli, P., Hartquist, T. W., & Williams, D. A. 2001, A&A, 370, 1017,

    2001

  77. [85]

    2004, A&A, 422, 159,

    Wakelam, V ., Caselli, P., Ceccarelli, C., Herbst, E., & Castets, A. 2004, A&A, 422, 159,

    2004

  78. [86]

    2011, A&A, 529, A112,

    Wakelam, V ., Hersant, F., & Herpin, F. 2011, A&A, 529, A112,

    2011

  79. [87]

    2020, The chemical biology of sulfur (London: Royal Society of Chemistry)

    Walsh, C. 2020, The chemical biology of sulfur (London: Royal Society of Chemistry)

    2020

  80. [88]

    J., Butterworth, A

    Westphal, A. J., Butterworth, A. L., Tomsick, J. A., & Gainsforth, Z. 2019, ApJ, 872, 66,

    2019

  81. [89]

    2000, ApJ, 542, 914,

    Wilms, J., Allen, A., & McCray, R. 2000, ApJ, 542, 914,

    2000

  82. [90]

    C., García, J., Kallman, T

    Witthoeft, M. C., García, J., Kallman, T. R., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 7,

    2011

  83. [91]

    M., Occhiogrosso, A., Viti, S., et al

    Woods, P. M., Occhiogrosso, A., Viti, S., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 1256,

    2015

  84. [92]

    T., Costantini, E., Rogantini, D., et al

    Zeegers, S. T., Costantini, E., Rogantini, D., et al. 2019, A&A, 627, A16,

    2019

Pith tools

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