Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 61 references

The optical constants and grain sizes of interstellar dust measured directly using the dust scattered x-ray halo of GRB 221009A

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The expanding X-ray rings of GRB 221009A directly measure the size distribution and complex refractive index of interstellar dust.

desk verdict A careful ADT re-analysis of the GRB 221009A X-ray rings that delivers the first direct measurement of the dust refractive index at X-ray energies; the single-population assumption is the main caveat, but the core result looks solid. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.12125 v1 pith:PWXZUVN5 submitted 2025-06-13 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA

Albert Sneppen , Darach Watson This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.GA
keywords interstellardustX-rayscatteringhaloGRB221009AanomalousdiffractiontheorycomplexrefractiveindexgrainsizedistributionRayleigh-Gansapproximationironin
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 aims to show that the expanding X-ray scattering halo of the exceptionally bright gamma-ray burst GRB 221009A carries direct, quantitative information about the grains that scattered it: their size distribution and their complex refractive index $m=n+ik$ at X-ray energies. Modeling the fading of the observed rings with anomalous diffraction theory, the authors find $k_{1\,\mathrm{keV}}=(2.7\pm0.7)\times10^{-4}$ and $1-n_{1\,\mathrm{keV}}=(9\pm2)\times10^{-4}$, values that are inconsistent with the commonly used Rayleigh-Gans approximation and that match iron-bearing silicate dust. They also find that the MRN power-law grain size distribution has a maximum radius $a_{\max}=0.24\pm0.01\,\mu\mathrm{m}$, firmly excluding a significant population of $\sim0.4\,\mu\mathrm{m}$ grains along this sight line. The inferred iron mass fraction, $35\pm7\%$, aligns with expectations from interstellar abundances and depletion measurements. If the method is right, bright extragalactic transients can serve as a direct probe of the physical and chemical properties of Milky Way dust.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the expanding dust-scattered X-ray halo of GRB 221009A, observed as rings by XMM-Newton's EPIC cameras at 2.3--2.9 and 4.7--5.1 days after the burst, with the geometric delay $t_d = D\theta^2/(2c)$ mapping each ring to a dust-sheet distance $D$ and scattering angle $\theta$. The scattering is modeled with anomalous diffraction theory (ADT), whose differential cross-section for a spherical grain of radius $a$ is computed from the phase-shift integral involving $(2\pi a/\lambda)(m-1)$; ADT is valid for $|m-1|\ll1$ and $a/\lambda\gg1$, where the Rayleigh-Gans approximation breaks down. The fit simultaneously adjusts the radial dust density at 50 distance bins, the parameters of an MRN power-law grain size distribution $n(a)\propto a^{-q}$ up to $a_{\max}$, and a power-law parameterization of the refractive index, $k(E)=k_{1\,\mathrm{keV}}E^{-k_\alpha}$ and $1-n(E)=(1-n_{1\,\mathrm{keV}})E^{-n_\alpha}$, using MCMC sampling to map the posterior.

What would settle it

A future X-ray observation with spectral resolution that resolves the oxygen K-edge at 0.532 keV would test the assumed power-law form of $k(E)$: a factor-of-several step in absorption at that energy, unresolved in EPIC data, would show the inferred $k_{1\,\mathrm{keV}}$ and iron fraction are biased by the parameterization. Alternatively, detecting the $\sim0.4\,\mu\mathrm{m}$ grains the model excludes would require seeing their strongly forward-scattered photons at angles below $0.1^\circ$ or at lower energies than the current 0.5 keV threshold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the energy- and angle-dependent fading of GRB 221009A's X-ray rings directly constrains the complex refractive index and grain-size distribution of Galactic interstellar dust, without assuming a specific dust composition in advance. Using anomalous diffraction theory rather than the Rayleigh-Gans approximation, which the paper shows is statistically disfavoured and biased, the best fit gives $k_{1\,\mathrm{keV}}=(2.7\pm0.7)\times10^{-4}$ and $1-n_{1\,\mathrm{keV}}=(9\pm2)\times10^{-4}$, with power-law slopes $k_\alpha=3.4\pm0.2$ and $n_\alpha=2.2\pm0.2$ over $0.5$--$4$ keV. These optical constants are close to those of iron-bearing silicates such as MgFeSiO$_4$, and the absorption component requires a substantial iron mass fraction of $35\pm7\%$ when the dust is modeled as a mixture of Fe, MgSiO$_3$, and carbon. The fitted maximum grain radius, $a_{\max}=0.24\pm0.01\,\mu\mathrm{m}$, and the steep MRN slope $q=3.08\pm0.04$ rule out models with abundant $\sim0.4\,\mu\mathrm{m}$ grains, in tension with the astrodust size distribution proposed for the mean Milky Way sight line. As a consistency check, the soft X-ray spectrum of the prompt burst recovered from the rings agrees with the low-energy slope of the directly measured prompt emission.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that the complex refractive index follows a smooth power law in energy and that one grain composition and size distribution describes all dust layers; if the energy dependence bends near absorption edges or grain properties vary with distance, the inferred $k$, $n$, and iron fraction would shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Rayleigh-Gans-based analyses of X-ray scattering halos will underestimate the maximum grain size; here the RG fit gives $a_+=0.212\pm0.008\,\mu\mathrm{m}$ while ADT gives $0.235$--$0.24\,\mu\mathrm{m}$, so the systematic bias exceeds the statistical error.
  • Dust models that include a significant population of $\sim0.4\,\mu\mathrm{m}$ grains, such as the fiducial astrodust distribution, are strongly disfavored for this sight line, with $\Delta\chi^2\approx1350$ relative to the MRN fit.
  • The absorption component of the refractive index requires substantial iron in the scattering grains; mixtures of Fe, MgSiO$_3$, and graphitic carbon give an iron mass fraction of $0.35\pm0.07$, consistent with depletion-based expectations.
  • The soft X-ray spectrum of the prompt GRB can be recovered from the rings, matching the low-energy slope of the Band model of the direct emission, which provides an independent check that the grain model is correct.
  • X-ray scattering halos can measure the complex refractive index of interstellar dust directly, making bright transients a general tool for dust composition studies.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the constraining power comes mostly from photons below 1 keV, a future bright transient observed with higher spectral resolution near the oxygen K-edge at 0.532 keV could test the power-law parameterization and possibly measure the oxygen abundance of dust as a function of grain size.
  • The apparent tension between the absorption-favored iron content and the weaker real-part constraint could mean that scattering and absorbing elements live in grains of different sizes; a two-population model with composition varying by size would be a natural next test.
  • If the ruling out of $\sim0.4\,\mu\mathrm{m}$ grains holds for other sight lines, models built to reproduce the mean Galactic extinction and polarization may need to treat the large-grain population as spatially variable rather than universal.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper analyzes the expanding X-ray scattering halo of GRB 221009A observed with XMM-Newton at two epochs, modeling the ring brightness as a function of angle, time, and energy using anomalous diffraction theory (ADT). The authors simultaneously fit the radial dust density, a parametric grain size distribution (MRN and variants), and the complex refractive index parametrized as power laws in energy. They report k_1keV = (2.7 ± 0.7)×10^-4 and 1 - n_1keV = (9 ± 2)×10^-4, claim inconsistency with the Rayleigh-Gans approximation, find a maximum grain radius amax = 0.24 ± 0.01 μm, rule out a significant population of ~0.4 μm grains, infer an iron mass fraction of 35 ± 7%, and show that the inferred prompt spectrum is consistent with the low-energy slope of the Band model.

Significance. If the results hold, this is the first direct measurement of the complex refractive index of interstellar dust from a scattering halo, and it demonstrates the importance of ADT over the commonly used Rayleigh-Gans approximation. The model comparisons yield chi2 differences of order 1000, making the qualitative conclusions robust. The work is likely to influence future analyses of X-ray scattering halos and dust property measurements. However, the quantitative central values and error bars are conditional on several simplifying assumptions that are acknowledged but not fully tested.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 2.2 (Eq. 3) and Sec. 4.4] The factorization n_g(a,D) = n(a)n_d(D) forces a single grain size distribution and composition for all dust sheets, while the ring data probe sheets at distances from ~300 pc to >2 kpc, including prominent sheets near ~400 pc, ~700 pc, and ~2 kpc. If grain properties vary with distance, the quoted global amax, n_1keV, and k_1keV are biased averages and the MCMC error bars do not capture the resulting systematic shift. The paper acknowledges this in Sec. 4.4 ('we do not allow for the different dust sheets to have different dust properties') but does not test it, e.g., by splitting the data by ring distance or allowing independent grain parameters for the strongest sheets. The elevated reduced chi2 of 1.19–1.42 is consistent with such unmodeled spatial variation, and the prompt-spectrum cross-check validates the total energy dependence but not the spatial uniformity.
  2. [Sec. 2.3.3] The energy dependence of the complex refractive index is assumed to be a power law, k(E) = k_1keV E^{-k_alpha} and 1 - n(E) = (1 - n_1keV) E^{-n_alpha}. The text states that the refractive index 'can be fit independently at each energy bin or with a spectral model', but only the power-law fits are reported. Because the quantitative claims (k_1keV, 1 - n_1keV, and the iron mass fraction) depend on this parametrization, the paper should present the independent per-bin fits, at least for the energy bins with good signal-to-noise, and quantify whether the power-law indices are consistent with them. This is especially relevant given the oxygen K-edge at 0.532 keV, which is acknowledged in Sec. 4.3 but lies inside the fitted band.
  3. [Sec. 2.3 and Table 3] The best-fit reduced chi2 values of 1.19–1.42 with ~5800 degrees of freedom formally reject the statistical model, as the paper notes. Nevertheless, the quoted 1-sigma uncertainties (e.g., amax = 0.24 ± 0.01 μm, k_1keV = (2.7 ± 0.7) × 10^-4) are the MCMC statistical errors under that rejected model. The paper should either incorporate systematic uncertainties from model assumptions (single grain population, power-law energy dependence, spherical grains, single scattering, factorization) or explicitly state that the error bars are conditional on the model and likely underestimate the true uncertainty. This is load-bearing for the claim of a 'direct measurement'.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 2.3] The description of the RG model is ambiguous: 'enforce the RG approximation (e.g. k = 0, n−1∼ 0)' would yield no scattering; please specify the exact optical constants and formula used for the 'MRN RG' row in Table 3.
  2. [Sec. 2.2.2] There is a duplicate 'the' in 'to examine the the optical constants of the grains'.
  3. [Sec. 4.3] 'GRB 230307A' appears to be a typo for GRB 221009A, since the cited Tiengo et al. (2023) concerns the latter.
  4. [Fig. 7] The shaded confidence bands are difficult to distinguish in some print versions; separating the 68% and 95% contours would improve readability.
  5. [Table 1] The flux ratios (F_0.5 keV etc.) should state whether they are per unit energy or per band; a short note would avoid ambiguity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the optical constants and grain-size parameters are genuine MCMC fits to the halo fading data, and the prompt-spectrum agreement is an external cross-check, not an input.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The refractive index (n_1keV, k_1keV, n_alpha, k_alpha), grain-size parameters, and the 50-bin radial dust density are fitted simultaneously to the observed (theta, t_d) halo surface brightness in nine energy bands using anomalous diffraction theory (Eqs. 2-4) with flat priors (Sec. 2.3). The per-band input flux normalizations are also free parameters, so the source spectrum is not an input; Sec. 3.1 states the authors 'choose to leave the analysis agnostic with complete freedom to vary the spectral shape.' The inferred prompt spectrum is therefore a fitted by-product, and its agreement with the externally measured Band-model slope (Lesage et al. 2023) is a genuine cross-check because the Band slope is not imposed on the halo fit. The composition conclusions compare the fitted n(E), k(E) to independent optical constants (Henke et al. 1993; Draine 2003; Draine & Hensley 2021) and to discrete mixing models (Secs. 3.3-3.4), all external inputs. The only self-citation (Watson et al. 2006) is a background example in the introduction and carries no load. Stated limitations are weighed and do not constitute circularity: the factorization n_g(a,D)=n(a)n_d(D) (Sec. 2.2) and the single-grain-population assumption (Sec. 4.4: 'we do not allow for the different dust sheets to have different dust properties') are modeling assumptions that could bias the fitted values if violated, but they do not presuppose the conclusions; the elevated reduced chi-square of 1.19-1.42 (Sec. 2.3) is likewise an honest limitation statement, not a circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

All free parameters are fitted to the same dataset; the model choices (MRN power law, power-law refractive index, single grain population) are pragmatic approximations that the paper acknowledges. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (10)
  • amax (MRN maximum grain radius) = 0.24 ± 0.01 µm
    Determines the large-grain cutoff in the MRN power-law size distribution; inferred from the angular fading of the rings.
  • amin (MRN minimum grain radius) = <0.022 µm (2σ upper limit)
    Small grains contribute little to the scattering signal; only an upper limit is obtained.
  • q (MRN power-law slope) = 3.08 ± 0.04
    Slope of the grain size distribution; constrained by the energy- and angle-dependent fading.
  • k_1keV (imaginary part of refractive index at 1 keV) = (2.7 ± 0.7) x 10^-4
    Central result; controls X-ray absorption by the grains and is constrained by the relative fading of rings across energy bands.
  • 1 - n_1keV (real part deficit at 1 keV) = (9 ± 2) x 10^-4
    Central result; controls the scattering phase shift and is constrained by the angular profile.
  • k_alpha (power-law index for k(E)) = 3.4 ± 0.2
    Parameterizes the energy dependence of the imaginary refractive index; fitted across the 0.5-4 keV band.
  • n_alpha (power-law index for 1-n(E)) = 2.2 ± 0.2
    Parameterizes the energy dependence of the real part; fitted across the band.
  • nd(D) radial dust density at 50 bins = See Table 2 (e.g., 32±9 at 250 pc, 140±30 at 2027 pc)
    Nuisance parameters describing the line-of-sight dust distribution; normalized at 1 kpc.
  • Relative flux normalization per energy band = e.g., F_0.5keV = 0.09±0.02, F_1.25keV = 1.48±0.04, relative to 1 keV
    Nuisance parameters for the input GRB spectrum; their fitted values form the inferred prompt spectrum.
  • Mass fractions in composition mixture fits (Fe, MgSiO3, C) = x(Fe) = 0.35 ± 0.07 (2σ 0.20-0.47)
    In the three-component fits used to infer the iron mass fraction; the paper notes degeneracies between MgSiO3 and C.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Anomalous diffraction theory (ADT) applies: |m-1| << 1 and a/λ >> 1 (Eq. 4).
    The scattering cross-section is computed with ADT from Draine & Allaf-Akbari (2006). The paper argues these conditions hold for X-ray wavelengths and the grain sizes considered.
  • domain assumption Single-scattering approximation; multiple scattering is neglected (Eqs. 2-3).
    The halo brightness formula assumes each photon scatters once. The paper notes this in Sec. 4.4 as a limitation.
  • domain assumption Dust density and grain size distribution are separable: n_g(a,D) = n(a) n_d(D) (Sec. 2.3).
    A single grain size distribution and composition are assumed for all dust sheets along the sightline.
  • ad hoc to paper Grain size distribution follows an MRN power law (Eq. 6), possibly with an exponential cutoff or a lognormal component.
    The functional form is a model choice, not derived. The authors test several forms, but the central results use the MRN prescription.
  • ad hoc to paper Refractive index energy dependence follows power laws k(E) = k_1keV E^{-k_alpha}, 1-n(E) = (1-n_1keV) E^{-n_alpha} (Sec. 2.3.3).
    A convenient approximation that ignores atomic absorption edges; the authors acknowledge this could fail near edges such as the oxygen K-edge.
  • standard math Time-delay geometry td = D θ^2 / (2c) (Eq. 1).
    Assumes the dust is much closer to the observer than the GRB, which is standard for extragalactic sources.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The optical constants and grain sizes of interstellar dust measured directly using the dust scattered x-ray halo of GRB 221009A." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PWXZUVN5

@misc{pith2026250612125,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The optical constants and grain sizes of interstellar dust measured directly using the dust scattered x-ray halo of GRB 221009A},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PWXZUVN5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.12125}
}
abstract

X-ray scattering is a powerful probe of the optical constants and grain size distribution of interstellar dust. Bright, transient sources are excellent tools for this, since they fade rapidly, leaving only the expanding scattered x-ray halo. Here, we analyse the dust-scattered x-ray halo data of the unprecedentedly bright $\gamma$-ray burst, GRB 221009A, using anomalous diffraction theory to measure the grain size distribution of dust in the Galaxy as well as the complex refractive index, $m$, and use these results to infer the likely composition. We find a complex refractive index, $m=n+ik$ at several x-ray energies, finding $k_{1\,\mathrm{keV}}= (2.7 \pm 0.7)\times10^{-4}$ and $1-n_{1\,\mathrm{keV}}= (9 \pm 2)\times 10^{-4}$, strongly inconsistent with the commonly employed assumptions of the Rayleigh-Gans approximation. These results lie in the expected range for interstellar dust compositions dominated by carbon, magnesium silicates, and iron. The absorption results suggest a substantial mass fraction of iron at $35\pm7\%$. The MRN distribution fit returns a maximum grain radius, $a_{\rm max}=0.24\pm 0.01\,\mu$m; all fits strongly rule out models with $\sim0.4\,\mu$m grains for this sightline. The soft x-ray spectrum of the prompt GRB can also be inferred from the fitting, with the best-fit providing a spectral slope that is consistent with the slope of the low energy side of the best-fit Band model of the directly measured prompt emission. Forcing a different grain size or composition than the best fit results in an inferred prompt spectrum different to the observed prompt emission. The refractive index is consistent with standard average dust compositions, showing that x-ray scattering is an effective tool to measure interstellar dust optical properties. [abridged]

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.12125 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left and centre: exposure-corrected 0.5–4 keV images observed about six hours apart. Right: difference images highlighting the short timescale evolution over six hours with a blue-red pattern showing rings undergoing outward motion and subtle fading. The top row shows data from the first epoch, around 2.3 days, from EPIC’s MOS1 and MOS2 cameras, while the bottom row shows the second epoch data, from around 4.7 days … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. X-ray counts as a function of the two major derived dimensions of our data-set – dust distance (left) and scattering angle (right). The left panel shows the normalised histogram of counts in logarithmic bins of distance, i.e. angular distance from the GRB position transformed using D = 2ctθ −2 (see Eq. 1). Epochs 1 and 2 are shown with blue and red colours respectively, while distinct rings (i.e. dust-sheets associa… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. X-ray halo model intensity (first column), observed intensity (middle column) and χ 2 -comparison (last column) as a function of an￾gle (θ) and post-GRB time (td) in different energy-bands. The rings ex￾pand with time and, particularly at higher energies, fade with increasing angle. An MRN grain-size distribution (with parameters summarised in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The dust’s radial density landscape fitted for the fiducial com￾putation (black) and for twice as good radial resolution (blue). The in￾creased resolution allows for greater constraints on the radial distribu￾tion of dust, but is not important in measuring the energy o…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The input spectrum of the GRB prior to scattering on Galactic dust sheets. The blue errorbars indicate the inferred input x-ray signal, given the best-fit model grain-properties. For comparison the expected shape of a power-law-decline of the prompt signal (black dashe…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Corner plot showing the posterior probability distributions of the best fit MRN grain size model with a power-law parametrisation of the refractive index with 1, 2 and 3σ contours. The key parameters of the MRN maximum grain-size, a+ and power-law slope, q, are shown, …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The posterior probability distribution on the relative compo￾sition of Fe and MgSiO3. The 1, 2 and 3σ intervals are indicated with increasingly lighter shades. icate (Zeegers et al. 2019; Rogantini et al. 2019, 2020). Cor￾rales et al. (2024) found that iron-bearing ma…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Upper panel: Ternary plot with posterior distribution of the mass fractional composition with three representative components: MgSiO3, Fe, and graphitic carbon. Such a three-dimensional space is plotted in a 2D, ternary landscape, because the sum of the contribu￾tions…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    G., Lazarian, A., & Vaillancourt, J

    Andersson, B. G., Lazarian, A., & Vaillancourt, J. E. 2015, ARA&A, 53, 501

    2015

  2. [2]

    J., & Scott, P

    Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 481

    2009

  3. [3]

    P., Willingale, R., Kuulkers, E., et al

    Beardmore, A. P., Willingale, R., Kuulkers, E., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 1847

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    V ., Gatuzz, E., et al

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

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Corrales, L. R. & Paerels, F. 2015, MNRAS, 453, 1121

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    & Corrales, L

    Costantini, E. & Corrales, L. 2022, in Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray As- trophysics, ed. C. Bambi & A. Sangangelo, 40 De Cia, A., Ledoux, C., Mattsson, L., et al. 2016, A&A, 596, A97 De Cia, A., Ledoux, C., Petitjean, P., & Savaglio, S. 2018, A&A, 611, A76 de Vries, C. P. & Costantini, E. 2009, A&A, 497, 393

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Draine, B. T. 2003, ApJ, 598, 1026

    2003

  8. [8]

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

    2011

Show all 61 references
  1. [9]

    Draine, B. T. & Allaf-Akbari, K. 2006, ApJ, 652, 1318

    2006

  2. [10]

    Draine, B. T. & Hensley, B. S. 2021, ApJ, 909, 94

    2021

  3. [11]

    Draine, B. T. & Tan, J. C. 2003, ApJ, 594, 347

    2003

  4. [12]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306

    2013

  5. [13]

    2015, ApJ, 806, 265

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

    2015

  6. [14]

    L., Gullikson, E

    Henke, B. L., Gullikson, E. M., & Davis, J. C. 1993, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, 54, 181

    1993

  7. [15]

    2010, ARA&A, 48, 21

    Henning, T. 2010, ARA&A, 48, 21

    2010

  8. [16]

    Hensley, B. S. & Draine, B. T. 2023, ApJ, 948, 55

    2023

  9. [17]

    & Draine, B

    Hoffman, J. & Draine, B. T. 2016, ApJ, 817, 139

    2016

  10. [18]

    Jenkins, E. B. 2009, ApJ, 700, 1299

    2009

  11. [19]

    P., Köhler, M., Ysard, N., Bocchio, M., & Verstraete, L

    Jones, A. P., Köhler, M., Ysard, N., Bocchio, M., & Verstraete, L. 2017, A&A, 602, A46

    2017

  12. [20]

    2022, A&A, 666, A12

    Konstantopoulou, C., De Cia, A., Krogager, J.-K., et al. 2022, A&A, 666, A12

    2022

  13. [21]

    2024, A&A, 681, A64

    Konstantopoulou, C., De Cia, A., Ledoux, C., et al. 2024, A&A, 681, A64

    2024

  14. [22]

    Lee, J. C. & Ravel, B. 2005, ApJ, 622, 970

    2005

  15. [23]

    S., et al

    Lesage, S., Veres, P., Briggs, M. S., et al. 2023, ApJ, 952, L42

    2023

  16. [24]

    2003, ApJ, 591, 1220

    Lodders, K. 2003, ApJ, 591, 1220

    2003

  17. [25]

    B., Levan, A

    Malesani, D. B., Levan, A. J., Izzo, L., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2302.07891

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

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

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

    1977

  19. [27]

    C., & Petitjean, P

    Mattsson, L., De Cia, A., Andersen, A. C., & Petitjean, P. 2019, A&A, 624, A103

    2019

  20. [28]

    Mauche, C. W. & Gorenstein, P. 1986, ApJ, 302, 371

    1986

  21. [29]

    Min, M., Waters, L. B. F. M., de Koter, A., et al. 2007, A&A, 462, 667

    2007

  22. [30]

    J., Waters, L

    Molster, F. J., Waters, L. B. F. M., & Tielens, A. G. G. M. 2002, A&A, 382, 222

    2002

  23. [31]

    B., et al

    Newville, M., Stensitzki, T., Allen, D. B., et al. 2016, Lmfit: Non-Linear Least- Square Minimization and Curve-Fitting for Python, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1606.014

    2016

  24. [32]

    Overbeck, J. W. 1965, ApJ, 141, 864

    1965

  25. [33]

    2017, MNRAS, 472, 1465 Planck Collaboration, Abergel, A., Ade, P

    Pintore, F., Tiengo, A., Mereghetti, S., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 1465 Planck Collaboration, Abergel, A., Ade, P. A. R., et al. 2014, A&A, 571, A11 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y ., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A12

    2017

  26. [34]

    A., Whittet, D

    Poteet, C. A., Whittet, D. C. B., & Draine, B. T. 2015, ApJ, 801, 110

    2015

  27. [35]

    & Schmitt, J

    Predehl, P. & Schmitt, J. H. M. M. 1995, A&A, 293, 889

    1995

  28. [36]

    2024, AJ, 167, 217

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

    2024

  29. [37]

    2023, A&A, 670, A30

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

    2023

  30. [38]

    M., Rosen, S

    Read, A. M., Rosen, S. R., Saxton, R. D., & Ramirez, J. 2011, A&A, 534, A34

    2011

  31. [39]

    T., et al

    Rogantini, D., Costantini, E., Zeegers, S. T., et al. 2019, A&A, 630, A143 Article number, page 12 of 13 Albert Sneppen and Darach Watson: Grain properties from the x-ray scattering halo of GRB 221009A

    2019

  32. [40]

    T., et al

    Rogantini, D., Costantini, E., Zeegers, S. T., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A149

    2020

  33. [41]

    Rolf, D. P. 1983, Nature, 302, 46

    1983

  34. [42]

    Savage, B. D. & Sembach, K. R. 1996, ARA&A, 34, 279

    1996

  35. [43]

    Smith, R. K. & Dwek, E. 1998, ApJ, 503, 831

    1998

  36. [44]

    K., Edgar, R

    Smith, R. K., Edgar, R. J., & Shafer, R. A. 2002, ApJ, 581, 562

    2002

  37. [45]

    Tielens, A. G. G. M., Waters, L. B. F. M., Molster, F. J., & Justtanont, K. 1998, Ap&SS, 255, 415

    1998

  38. [46]

    & Mereghetti, S

    Tiengo, A. & Mereghetti, S. 2006, A&A, 449, 203

    2006

  39. [47]

    2023, ApJ, 946, L30

    Tiengo, A., Pintore, F., Vaia, B., et al. 2023, ApJ, 946, L30

    2023

  40. [48]

    2010, ApJ, 710, 227

    Tiengo, A., Vianello, G., Esposito, P., et al. 2010, ApJ, 710, 227

    2010

  41. [49]

    2025, A&A, 696, A9 van de Hulst, H

    Vaia, B., Bošnjak, Ž., Bracco, A., et al. 2025, A&A, 696, A9 van de Hulst, H. C. 1957, Light Scattering by Small Particles

    2025

  42. [50]

    I., & Petropoulou, M

    Vasilopoulos, G., Karavola, D., Stathopoulos, S. I., & Petropoulou, M. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 1590

    2023

  43. [51]

    T., et al

    Vaughan, S., Willingale, R., O’Brien, P. T., et al. 2004, ApJ, 603, L5

    2004

  44. [52]

    2006, ApJ, 639, 323

    Vaughan, S., Willingale, R., Romano, P., et al. 2006, ApJ, 639, 323

    2006

  45. [53]

    A., Willingale, R., et al

    Watson, D., Vaughan, S. A., Willingale, R., et al. 2006, ApJ, 636, 967

    2006

  46. [54]

    Weingartner, J. C. & Draine, B. T. 2001, ApJ, 548, 296

    2001

  47. [55]

    J., Butterworth, A

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

    2019

  48. [56]

    A., Kennea, J

    Williams, M. A., Kennea, J. A., Dichiara, S., et al. 2023, ApJ, 946, L24

    2023

  49. [57]

    1986, Nature, 319, 652

    Xu, Y ., McCray, R., & Kelley, R. 1986, Nature, 319, 652

    1986

  50. [58]

    T., Costantini, E., de Vries, C

    Zeegers, S. T., Costantini, E., de Vries, C. P., et al. 2017, A&A, 599, A117

    2017

  51. [59]

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

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

    2019

  52. [60]

    & Shen, R.-F

    Zhao, G. & Shen, R.-F. 2024, ApJ, 970, 124

    2024

  53. [61]

    2018, ApJ, 857, 94 Article number, page 13 of 13

    Zhukovska, S., Henning, T., & Dobbs, C. 2018, ApJ, 857, 94 Article number, page 13 of 13

    2018

Pith tools

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