Photodesorption of SO2 and SO from UV-irradiated SO2 ices

Ang\`ele Taillard; Asunci\'on Fuente; Bruno Escribano; David Navarro-Almaida; Guillermo M. Mu\~noz Caro; H\'ector Carrascosa; Rafael Mart\'in-Dom\'enech

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 96 references

Photodesorption of SO2 and SO from UV-irradiated SO2 ices

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper reports the first ISM-relevant laboratory measurement of how vacuum-ultraviolet photons release SO2 and SO from SO2 ice, giving yields of about 2e-4 and 6e-5 molecules per photon at 14 K, and a theoretical band strength for the…

desk verdict Solid SO2 photodesorption yields and a useful SO3 band strength; the tentative SO yield rides on a m/z=48 assignment that needs a quantitative check. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.06081 v1 pith:6HP5FDN5 submitted 2025-07-08 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.SR

Rafael Martín-Doménech , Bruno Escribano , David Navarro-Almaida , Angèle Taillard , Héctor Carrascosa , Guillermo M. Muñoz Caro , Asunción Fuente This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR

keywords photodesorptionSO2icesulfurmonoxidevacuum-ultravioletirradiationinterstellaricesastrophysicalchemistryIRbandstrengthSO3

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 measures, for the first time under interstellar-medium relevant conditions, how efficiently vacuum-ultraviolet photons release sulfur dioxide and sulfur monoxide from SO2 ice. At 14 K the SO2 photodesorption yield is about 2.3e-4 molecules per incident photon; it grows with temperature to 3.8e-4 at 70 K and then falls at 80 K, a behavior the paper ties to the amorphous-to-crystalline phase transition of the ice. A residual mass-48 signal, tentatively assigned to SO, implies a yield near 6e-5 molecules per photon at 14 K with no strong temperature dependence, and the yield's constancy with fluence points to prompt photochemical desorption of SO right after formation. These numbers matter because astrochemical models previously had no photodesorption constraints for these two sulfur molecules, and the paper shows they can account for the early gas-phase enrichment of SO and SO2 in photon-dominated regions at extinctions below about 5 magnitudes. The paper also delivers a theoretically derived band strength of 1.1e-16 cm molecule-1 for the 7.2 micron infrared feature of SO3, the main photoproduct, which will help future JWST searches for sulfur in interstellar ices.

What carries the argument

The central experimental object is the calibrated quadrupole mass spectrometer signal: ion currents at m/z 64, 48, and 32 are converted into photodesorption column densities using a calibration constant derived from CO photodesorption, electron-impact ionization cross-sections, measured fragmentation fractions, QMS sensitivity as a function of mass, and species-dependent pumping speeds. The SO yield is the residual in the m/z=48 signal after subtracting the SO2 fragmentation contribution, and its tentative identification relies on the absence of a companion m/z=32 signal that an ozone contribution would produce. On the infrared side, the paper runs density-functional-theory vibrational calculations on a periodic eight-molecule amorphous SO3 ice model to sum the intensities of the antisymmetric stretching vibrations into a band strength, with the ice density assumed equal to that of liquid SO3 and a 15 percent uncertainty budget derived from density variation.

What would settle it

Irradiate an isotopically labeled SO2 ice, such as 18O-substituted or 34S-substituted SO2, and watch the excess photodesorption signal around mass 48: if the excess shifts to the mass of the labeled SO product, the tentative SO assignment is confirmed, whereas if it shifts to the mass of an ozone isotopolog or remains at 48, the claimed SO yield does not measure SO. A simpler concurrent check is to search for the companion m/z=32 signal during irradiation; the paper reports none, which favors SO over O3, but an isotopolog run would settle it directly.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is a set of quantitative laboratory constraints: VUV-irradiated SO2 ice photodesorbs SO2 at a yield of roughly 2.3e-4 molecules per photon at 14 K, rising to 3.8e-4 at 70 K and declining at 80 K, and it also releases SO at a tentative yield of roughly 6e-5 molecules per photon at 14 K, with the SO yield insensitive to temperature and fluence. The SO2 yield is comparable to that of CO2 but one to two orders of magnitude below CO and NH3, showing that photodesorption efficiency is molecule-specific. The fluence-independence of the SO signal is interpreted as evidence for a photochemical desorption mechanism, in which SO desorbs promptly upon its formation from photodissociated SO2, rather than through an energy-transfer process that would accumulate surface photoproducts. In addition, the paper provides the first reported infrared band strength for SO3 in an amorphous ice, 1.1e-16 cm molecule-1 at about 1395 cm-1 (7.2 micron), and demonstrates that using this value rather than the SO2 band strength changes derived SO3 ice column densities by at least a factor of two.

Load-bearing premise

The tentative SO yield rests on the assumption that the excess mass-48 signal, after removing the SO2 fragmentation contribution, is photodesorbing SO rather than ozone or another 48-amu molecule; the paper itself states that isotopolog experiments would be required to confirm this.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Astrochemical models can now treat UV photodesorption of SO2 and SO with lab-measured yields instead of scaling from other molecules; the paper's models show the effect is largest at extinctions below about 5 magnitudes and in the first roughly 100 years of cloud evolution.
The strong temperature dependence of the SO2 yield, peaking near the amorphous-to-crystalline transition at 70 K, means models of warmer ice mantles should use temperature-dependent desorption rates rather than a single low-temperature value.
With the new SO3 band strength, the 7.2 micron feature becomes a quantitative tool: 5-sigma detection thresholds of about 4e15 cm-2 toward bright continua are within reach of JWST/MIRI, though methanol and continuum-subtraction contamination must be removed first.
The fluence-independence of the SO signal implies prompt photochemical desorption, so SO is injected into the gas phase at the moment of its formation, which couples the photochemistry of the ice directly to the gas-phase sulfur budget.

Reading between the lines

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

If the SO assignment survives isotopolog tests, the photochemical desorption of a photoproduct from its parent ice would be a rare direct laboratory demonstration of a mechanism that many models invoke to explain unsaturated molecules in cold gas.
The nearly linear relationship between the computed SO3 band strength and the assumed ice density in the appendix suggests that a single experimental measurement of amorphous SO3 ice density would sharpen every JWST-derived SO3 column density; until then, the 15 percent density-induced uncertainty is the limiting error.
Because SO2 photodesorption efficiency changes with temperature and crystallinity, similar experiments on mixed ices (for example SO2 in water- or CO-dominated mantles) could reveal whether the yields measured here over- or underestimate desorption in realistic interstellar grain mantles.
The paper's model uses a static isobaric PDR structure, leaving open whether dynamical front motion would enhance the photodesorption contribution; a time-dependent PDR model with the new yields would be a natural next test.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

First, the practical takeaway: the SO2 photodesorption yield is the real result, and it looks solid. 2.3e-4 molecules per photon at 14 K, rising to 3.8e-4 at 70 K, with duplicate experiments that agree within the stated scatter. The calibration chain (CO reference, QMS sensitivity, pumping speeds) is documented, and the raw data are on Zenodo. The temperature trend, including the amorphous-to-crystalline comparison, is a nice piece of work. The DFT band strength for the 1395 cm-1 SO3 feature (1.1e-16 cm molecule-1) is also new and sensible, with a density sensitivity analysis that gives a 15% uncertainty. I would trust the SO2 numbers and the band strength for modeling and for JWST ice interpretation.

The soft spot is the SO yield. The authors assign a small excess in m/z=48 to SO after subtracting SO2 fragmentation. The only other plausible carrier is O3, and the evidence against O3 is thinner than it looks. The O3 column that would explain the excess is about 0.02 ML, below the IR detection limit, so the absence of the 1040 cm-1 band does not rule it out. And the m/z=32 argument—no significant increase above baseline—is not quantitative; the expected SO signal at m/z=32 is only a factor of two below the excess, and could hide in the O2 background. The authors know this; they call the assignment tentative and ask for isotopolog experiments. That is honest, but it means the SO yield should be treated as a provisional estimate, not a measured value, until the carrier is confirmed. The adopted ionization cross-section for SO (from SO2) adds another unquantified systematic.

A couple of minor things: the plotted photodesorption rates have no uncertainty envelopes, and the DFT method is validated by an in-prep reference. Neither bothers me much—the tabulated yields carry uncertainties.

Bottom line: this is a competent experimental paper that fills a genuine gap: first ISM-relevant VUV photodesorption yields for SO2, and first SO3 IR band strength. The SO2 result and the band strength will get used. The SO carrier question is exactly what peer review should probe. Yes, I would send it to review, with a request that the m/z=32 upper limit be stated quantitatively or an isotopolog experiment be added. I would cite the SO2 yield and the band strength; I would cite the SO yield only with a 'tentative' qualifier.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper reports laboratory measurements of VUV photodesorption yields for SO2 ice and, tentatively, for SO, over a temperature range of 14–80 K, using the ISAC setup with a calibrated quadrupole mass spectrometer and simultaneous IR spectroscopy. The authors find a SO2 yield of about 2.3×10^-4 molecules per incident photon at 14 K, increasing to about 3.8×10^-4 at 70 K and then decreasing at 80 K, with a tentative SO yield of about 6×10^-5 molecules per photon at 14 K that shows no clear temperature trend. They also use DFT calculations to derive a band strength of 1.1×10^-16 cm molecule^-1 for the ~1395 cm^-1 SO3 IR feature. The photodesorption yields are then implemented in the Nautilus gas-grain chemical model for the Horsehead PDR, and the SO3 band strength is used to estimate JWST/MIRI detectability thresholds for SO3 in interstellar ices.

Significance. If the results hold, this paper provides the first ISM-relevant laboratory constraints on non-thermal desorption of SO2 and SO, quantities that astrochemical models currently lack. The SO2 yield is well supported by duplicate experiments, documented calibrations, and deposited data, and the temperature dependence is a useful input for models of UV-illuminated icy environments. The DFT-based SO3 band strength is a valuable addition for future JWST searches, and the synthetic ice spectra illustrate a concrete observational strategy. The paper is also transparent about the tentative nature of the SO assignment, which is appropriate given the unresolved carrier ambiguity. The main scientific impact will depend on whether the SO result can be confirmed, because the modeling conclusions in Section 4.2 use that yield as a quantitative input.

major comments (2)

[Section 3.2, Table 1, ninth column] The SO photodesorption yield is obtained by subtracting the SO2 fragmentation contribution from the measured m/z=48 QMS signal and assigning the residual to SO, but O3 is not quantitatively excluded. The O3 column density needed to explain the excess is on the order of 2×10^13 cm^-2 (about 0.02 ML), which is small compared with the ~1 ML of SO3 detected and likely below the detection limit of the IR spectra; the absence of the 1040 cm^-1 O3 band therefore does not provide a quantitative upper limit. In addition, the m/z=32 argument is qualitative because no baseline noise level or upper limit is reported, even though the expected O3 m/z=32 signal would be roughly five times the m/z=48 excess. The adopted SO ionization cross-section and fragmentation fraction from SO2/Dols et al. (2024) add systematic uncertainty that is not included in the quoted 40% uncertainty. The authors correctly recommend isotopolog experiments; until such data or a quantitative O3 upper limit are available, the SO yield should be presented as an upper limit rather than a measured value.
[Section 4.2, Fig. 6] The Nautilus models treat the tentative SO yield as a quantitative input, and the conclusion that SO photodesorption is a main gas-phase source at extinctions below 5 mag depends on the m/z=48 carrier being SO rather than O3. If the carrier is O3, the SO yield would need to be removed from the model, and the predicted SO abundance and SO2/SO ratio at low extinction would change. The modeling section should either explicitly frame the SO run as a provisional scenario contingent on confirmation of the carrier, or defer the quantitative SO modeling until the identification is established.

minor comments (4)

[Section 3.2 and Fig. 5 caption] The text and the Figure 5 caption state that the SO photodesorption rate is calculated 'using Eq. 3', but Eq. 3 is the IR band-strength relation; the QMS calibration uses Eq. 1, and this appears to be a typographical error.
[Section 3.1] The word 'assginment' should be 'assignment' in the phrase about the SO3 IR feature.
[References] The reference list contains some typographical errors, including 'Dufuor' for 'Dufour' in the Le Gal et al. entry and 'Wesemberg' for what is presumably 'Wesenberg' in the 2007 paper; please verify these names.
[Section 4.2] The citation 'Le Gal et al. 20217' should be 'Le Gal et al. 2021'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the photodesorption yields and SO3 band strength are produced by direct measurement and first-principles calculation, not by fitting to the quantities they are later used to interpret.

full rationale

The central results are experimentally measured or theoretically computed, and the model applications use them as fixed inputs. The SO2 photodesorption yield is obtained from the baseline-subtracted m/z = 64 QMS signal through Eq. 1 and the measured photon fluence; the SO yield is the residual m/z = 48 signal after subtracting the SO2 fragmentation contribution. No parameter in Eq. 1 is fitted to these desorption signals: k_CO is calibrated with a pure CO ice (Appendix A), ionization cross-sections are taken from NIST and Dols et al. (2024), and the QMS sensitivity is calibrated using noble gases. The Nautilus models in Section 4.2 insert the measured yields and compare the resulting abundances to observations; the observed SO2/SO ratio is not used to adjust or invert the yields, so no fitted-input-called-prediction pattern is present. The SO3 IR band strength is obtained from DFT calculations with CASTEP and linear-response theory, using a stated density assumption; it is not derived from the observed SO3 IR absorbance and is applied afterward to convert absorbance into column density. The tentative assignment of the m/z = 48 excess to SO rather than O3 is an acknowledged experimental ambiguity (the authors state that isotopolog experiments would be required to confirm it), but it is not a circular reduction: the carrier choice does not presuppose the reported SO yield. The only self-referential element is the validation citation to 'Escribano et al., in prep.' for the DFT method, but this is not load-bearing because the calculation itself is presented with standard methods and stated assumptions that do not include the target band strength. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks such as NIST cross-sections, noble-gas calibrations, and literature IR band strengths.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central measurements are empirical, so the burden is carried by calibration assumptions and by the assignment of the m/z=48 excess to SO. The four free parameters listed are inputs adopted to convert raw QMS signals into column densities and to compute the SO3 band strength; none are fitted to the astrophysical abundances. The SO3 density assumption is the most consequential because it scales the reported band strength linearly (Appendix B).

free parameters (4)

SO3 amorphous ice density = 1.92 g cm-3 (liquid SO3 density assumed)
Band strength calculation in Section 2.5 needs the density of amorphous SO3 ice, which is unknown; the authors assume it equals the liquid-phase density. Appendix B shows the derived band strength scales nearly linearly with density, so this assumption directly sets the reported A = 1.1e-16 cm molecule-1.
QMS sensitivity function for m/z > 40 = k*QMS*S = 1.05e15 - 6.7e12 x (m/z) A mbar-1 Angstrom2
Derived from Ne, Ar, Xe calibration points in Appendix A2 and used to convert m/z=64 signals into column densities. It is an empirical calibration function, not an ab initio quantity, and affects the absolute SO2 yield.
SO electron-impact ionization cross-section = 4.992 Angstrom2 (adopted from SO2)
Section 2.3 and Table 2: the SO cross-section is not available, so the SO2 value is adopted as a first approximation. This directly affects the tentative SO yield and contributes to its 40% uncertainty.
k_CO proportionality constant per experiment = 3.2 to 7.4 x 10-11 A min ML-1 (Table 1)
Section 2.3 and Appendix A1: k_CO changed between experiments and was corrected using deposition-phase m/z=64 signals. This empirical normalization enters every yield calculation.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The excess m/z=48 QMS signal during irradiation originates from photodesorbing SO molecules rather than O3 or other 48-amu species.
Section 3.2: the assignment is based on the absence of a m/z=32 signal and on fragmentation arguments, but is explicitly tentative and would require isotopolog experiments to confirm.
domain assumption The QMS signal conversion via Eq. 1 with CO calibration is applicable to SO2 and SO.
Section 2.3 and Appendix A: the calibration is performed with CO and noble gases; transfer to S-bearing molecules assumes the same proportionality and that the relative pumping speed follows the manufacturer's linear formula.
domain assumption The density of amorphous SO3 ice equals the liquid density (1.92 g cm-3).
Section 2.5 and Appendix B: motivated by the analogy with SO2, but no experimental density exists. Varying it by ±25% changes the derived band strength by ±15%.
domain assumption The UV absorption cross-section and the about 30% absorbed photon fraction are known well enough to define yields per incident photon.
Section 2.2: cross-sections from Holtom et al. (2006) corrected with the Yarnall and Hudson (2022) density, plus an in-house measurement. This affects the absolute normalization of the photodesorption yields.
domain assumption The static isobaric PDR structure with the Meudon code and the Nautilus network adequately represents the Horsehead PDR for testing the yields.
Section 4.2 and Appendix D: used to assess astrophysical impact. The authors acknowledge it is a toy model and that dynamical effects may be important.
domain assumption DFT with PBE, Grimme dispersion, and an 8-molecule periodic box reproduces amorphous ice IR band strengths.
Section 2.5: the claimed good agreement with experiments for many amorphous ices rests on the unpublished reference Escribano et al., in prep., so it cannot be independently checked from the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Photodesorption of SO2 and SO from UV-irradiated SO2 ices." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6HP5FDN5

@misc{pith2026250706081,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Photodesorption of SO2 and SO from UV-irradiated SO2 ices},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6HP5FDN5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.06081}
}

read the original abstract

The detection of high gas-phase abundances of SO2 and SO in the cold envelope of an intermediate mass protostar suggests that these molecules might form on icy dust grains and subsequently desorb to the gas phase by non-thermal desorption processes such as photodesorption. In this work we report photodesorption yields for SO2 and, tentatively, SO upon ultraviolet photon irradiation of SO2 ice samples at temperatures between 14 and 80 K. Photodesorption yields were measured directly in the gas phase using a calibrated quadrupole mass spectrometer. Yields of 2.3 x 10-4 molecule/photon and 6 x 10-5 molecule/photon were estimated for SO2 and SO at 14 K (respectively). The SO2 photodesorption yield increased with temperature up to a value of 3.8 x 10-4 molecule/photon at 70 K, followed by a decrease at 80 K that could be due to crystallization of the sample. The signal assigned to SO photodesorption did not significantly change with temperature. The estimated photodesorption yields were included in the Nautilus gas-grain chemical model to evaluate their contribution to the SO2 and SO gas-phase abundances in an astrophysical environment. In addition, we also present a theoretically estimated band strength for the 1395 cm-1 SO3 IR feature (A = 1.1 x 10-16 cm molecule-1). SO3 is the main detected product in irradiated SO2 ices, and a potential contributor to the 7.2 um band observed in some interstellar ice IR spectra.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.06081 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Emission spectrum of the MDHL measured in ISAC. by comparing the results obtained in Experiments 4 and 5 (crystalline ices deposited at 80 K and irradiated at 14 K) with those obtained in Experiments 1−3 (amorphous ices deposited and irradiated at 14 K). The initial thickness of the ice samples was 45−60 monolayers (1 ML = 1015 molecules cm−2 ), as determined by infrared (IR) spectroscopy (Sect. 2.4) and indicated i… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Fragmentation pattern of SO2 molecules measured in ISAC for pressures ≤ 2 × 10−8 mbar. for the density of solid SO2 at 19 K. Correcting the UV-absorption cross-section reported in Holtom et al. (2006) with the more recent value of the density leads to slightly higher absorption cross-sections (close to ∼8 × 10−18 cm2 ). Using the VUV monochromator and PMT mentioned above, we measured the UV-absorption cross-section … view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** IR spectra in the 1500−1000 cm−1 range of SO2 ice samples deposited at 14−80 K before (black) and after (blue) VUV photon irradiation. IR bands corresponding to SO2 and SO3 are indicated in the first panel. of a double-peaked IR band centered at ∼1395 cm−1 due to the formation of SO3 molecules (see, e.g., Chaabouni et al. 2000, for the assginment of the IR feature). According to the theoretically calculated IR ban… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (5 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: SO2 photodesorption rate (calculated from the baseline-subtracted 𝑚/𝑧 = 64 ion current using Eq. 1) during irradiation of SO2 ice samples at 13−80 K (black), along with the irradiated UV flux in every experiment (purple). Photodesorption of SO2 was also detected via th…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Photodesorption rate assigned to SO (calculated from the measured 𝑚/𝑧 = 48 ion current using Eq. 3 after subtracting the contribution from the SO2 fragmentation) during irradiation of SO2 ice samples at 13−80 K (black), along with the irradiated UV flux in every experi…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Model predictions of SO (left panel), SO2 (middle panel), and the SO2/SO ratio (right panel) in the SO2-rich ice scenario. The predictions that include our photodesorption yields are plotted in blue, while for the predictions in red the photodesorption yields were set …

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Detection threshold determination of SO3 for 3 different flat continua (from top to bottom: 1, 0.1 and 0.04 mJy) with a fiducial noise extracted from McClure et al. (2023). The synthetic ice spectra in blue represent the absorption of the SO3 vibrational mode for the …

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Synthetic ice absorption spectra toward the two background stars NIR38 and J110621 in Chameleon I. The background stars are represented by a K7V stellar spectrum (in grey), according to Dartois et al. (2024). Absorption features corresponding to different ice species a…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

96 extracted references · 80 canonical work pages

[1]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...
[2]

Abergel A., et al., 2003, A&A, 410, 577

2003
[3]

Anthony-Twarog B.J., 1982, AJ, 87, 1213

1982
[4]

Artur de la Villarmois E., et al., 2018, A&A, 614, A26

2018
[5]

Artur de la Villarmois E., J rgensen J.K., Kristensen L.E., Bergin E.A., Harsono D., Sakai N., van Dishoeck E.F., Yamamoto S., 2019, A&A, 626, A71

2019
[6]

Bertin M., et al.,2012, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys., 14, 9929

2012
[7]

Boissier J., et al., 2007, A&A, 475, 1131

2007
[8]

Boogert A.C.A., Schutte W.A., Helmich F.P., Tielens A.G.G.M., Wooden D.H., 1997, A&A, 317, 929

1997

Show all 96 references

[9]

Booth A., Ilee J.D., Walsh C., Kama M., Keyte L., van Dishoeck E.F., Hideko N., A&A, 669, A53
[10]

Booth A., van der Marel N., Leemker M., van Dishoeck E.F., Ohashi S., 2021, A&A, 651, L6

2021
[11]

Booth A., Walsh C., Kama M., Loomis R.A., Maud L.T., Juh\'asz A., 2018, A&A, 611, A16

2018
[12]

arXiv:1801.01547

Bron E., Ag\'undez M., Goicoechea J.R., Cernicharo J., 2018, arXix e-prints, p. arXiv:1801.01547

2018 arXiv
[13]

Sci., 585, 123

Burke D.J., Vondrak T., Meech S.R., 2005, Surf. Sci., 585, 123

2005
[14]

et al., 2016, MNRAS, 462, 1, S253

Calmonte U. et al., 2016, MNRAS, 462, 1, S253

2016
[15]

1992, MNRAS 258, 125

Cecchi-Pestellini C., & Aiello S. 1992, MNRAS 258, 125

1992
[16]

Chaabouni H., Schriver-Mazzuoli L., Schriver A., 2000, J. Phys. Chem. A, 104, 3498

2000
[17]

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

1997
[18]

R., 2014, ApJ, 781, 15

Chen Y.-J., Chuang K.-J., Mu\ noz Caro G.M., Nuevo, M., Chu C.-C., Yih T.S., Ip W.-H., Wu C.-Y. R., 2014, ApJ, 781, 15

2014
[19]

Kristall., 220, 567--570

Clark S.J., Segall M.D., Pickard C.J., Hasnip P.J., Probert M.J., Refson K., Payne M.C., 2005, Z. Kristall., 220, 567--570

2005
[20]

Cruz-D\'iaz G.A., Mart\'in-Dom\'enech R., Mu\ noz Caro G.M., Chen Y.-J., 2016, A&A, 592, A68

2016
[21]

Cruz-D\'iaz G.A., Mu\ noz Caro G.M., Chen Y.-J., Yih T.-S., 2014a, A&A, 562, A119
[22]

Cruz-D\'iaz G.A., Mu\ noz Caro G.M., Chen Y.-J., 2014c, MNRAS, 439, 2370
[23]

Cruz-D\'iaz G.A., Mu\ noz Caro G.M., Chen Y.-J., Yih T.-S., 2014c, A&A, 562, A120
[24]

Dalton J.B., Cruikshank D.P., Stephan K., McCord T.B., Coustenis A., Carlson R.W., Coradini A., 2010, Chemical Composition of Icy Satellite Surfaces, 153

2010
[25]

Dartois E., et al., 2024, NatAs, 8, 359

2024
[26]

Chem., 75, 685

de Laeter J.R., B\"ohlke, J.R., De Bievre, P., et al.\ 2003, Pure Appl. Chem., 75, 685

2003
[27]

de Souza Bonfim V., de Castilho R.B., Baptista L., Pilling S., 2017, PCCP, 19, 26906

2017
[28]

del Burgo Olivares C., Carrascosa H., Escribano B., Mu\ noz Caro G.M., Mart\'in-Dom\'enech R., 2024, MNRAS, 527-3, 8829

2024
[29]

Dols V., Paterson W.R., Bagenal F., 2024, J. Geophys. Res: Sp. Phys., 129, e2023JA031763

2024
[30]

Dutrey A., et al., 2011, A&A, 535, A104

2011
[31]

el Akel M., Kristensen L.E., Le Gal R., van der Walt S.J., Pitts R.L., Dulieu F., A&A, 659, A100
[32]

et al., in prep

Escribano B. et al., in prep
[33]

Facchini S., Teague R., Bae J., Benisty M., Keppler M., Isella A., 2021, AJ, 162-3, id.99

2021
[34]

Ferrante R.F., Moore M.H., Spiliotis M.M., Hudson R.L., 2008, ApJ, 684, 1210

2008
[35]

Fillion J.-H., et al., 2014, Farady Discuss., 168, 533

2014
[36]

Fuente A., Cernicharo J., Ag\'undez M., Bern\'e O., Goicoechea J.R., Alonso-Albi T., Marcelino N., 2010, A&A, 524, A19

2010
[37]

Fuente A., et al., 2017, ApJL, 851-2, L49

2017
[38]

Garozzo M., Fulvio D., Gomis O., Palumbo M.E., Strazzulla G., 2008, Plan. and Sp. Sci., 56, 1300

2008
[39]

Gerakines P.A., Schutte W.A., Greenberg J.M., van Dishoeck E.F., 1995, A&A, 296, 810

1995
[40]

Goicoechea L.J., Shalyapin V.N., 2016, A&A, 596, A77

2016
[41]

Goicoechea J.R., Pety J., Gerin M., Teyssier D., Roueff E., Hily-Blant P., Baek S., 2006, A&A, 456, 565

2006
[42]

Goicoechea J.R., Pety J., Gerin M., Hily-Blant P., Le Bourlout J., 2009, A&A, 498, 771

2009
[43]

Gratier P., Pety J., Guzm\'an V., Gerin M., Goicoechea J.R., Roueff E., Faure A., 2013, A&A, 557, A101

2013
[44]

Guzm\'an V.V., et al., 2013, A&A, 560, A73

2013
[45]

Guzm\'an V.V., Pety J., Gratier P., Goicoechea J.R., Gerin M., Roueff E., Le Petit F., Le Bourlot J., 2014, Faraday Discussions, 168, 103

2014
[46]

Guzm\'an V.V., Pety J., Goicoechea J.R., Gerin M., Roueff E., Gratier P., \"Oberg K.I., 2015, ApJ, 800, L33

2015
[47]

Gonz\'alez-D\'iaz C., Carrascosa H., Mu\ noz Caro G.M., Satorre M.\'A., Chen Y.-J., 2022, MNRAS, 517, 5744

2022
[48]

Gredel R., Lepp S., Dalgarno A., Herbst E., 1989, ApJ, 347, 289

1989
[49]

Grimme S., 2006, J. Comput. Chem., 27, 1787

2006
[50]

Guilloteau S., et al., 2016, A&A, 592, A124

2016
[51]

Rev., 136, B864

Hohenberg P., Kohn W., 1964, Phys. Rev., 136, B864

1964
[52]

Hern\'andez-Vera C., et al., 2023, A&A, 677, A152

2023
[53]

& Schiff H.I., 1956, J

Herron J.T. & Schiff H.I., 1956, J. Chem. Phys., 24, 1266

1956
[54]

Holtom P.D., Dawes A., Mukerji R.J., Davis M.P., Webb S.M., Hoffman S.V., Mason N.J., 2006, PCCP, 8, 714

2006
[55]

Joblin C., et al., 2018, A&A 615, A129

2018
[56]

Kaiser R.I., Jansen P., Petersen K., Roessler K., 1995, Rev. Sci. Instrum., 66, 5226

1995
[57]

Kaufman M.J., Wolfire M.G., Hollenbach D.J., Luhman M.L., 1999, ApJ, 527, 795

1999
[58]

Rev., 140, A1133

Kohn W., Sham L.J., 1965, Phys. Rev., 140, A1133

1965
[59]

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

2019
[60]

Le Gal R., et al., 2021, ApJSS, 257-1, id.12

2021
[61]

Le Gal R., Herbst E., Dufuor G., Gratier P., Ruaud M., Vidal T.H.G., Wakelam V., 2017, A&A, 605, A88

2017
[62]

Le Petit F., Nehm\'e C., Le Bourlot J., Roueff E., 2006, ApJS, 164, 506

2006
[63]

Le Roy L., et al., 2015, A&A, 583, A1

2015
[64]

Maillard V., Bron E., Le Petit F., 2021, A&A 656, A65

2021
[65]

& Kaiser R.I., 2013, ApJ, 773, 184

Maity S. & Kaiser R.I., 2013, ApJ, 773, 184

2013
[66]

Mart\'in-Dom\'enech R., Cruz-D\'iaz G.A., Mu\ noz Caro G.M., 2018, MNRAS, 473, 2575

2018
[67]

Mart\'in-Dom\'enech R., Manzano-Santamar\'ia J., Mu\ noz Caro G.M., Cruz-D\'iaz G.A., Chen Y.-J., Herrero V.J., Tanarro I., 2015, A&A, 584, A14

2015
[68]

Mart\'in-Dom\'enech R., Mu\ noz Caro G.M., Cruz-D\'iaz G.A., 2016, A&A, 589, A107

2016
[69]

et al., 2023, NatAs, 7, 431

McClure M.K. et al., 2023, NatAs, 7, 431

2023
[70]

Moore M.H., 1984, Icarus, 59, 114

1984
[71]

Moore M., Hudson R.L., Carlson R.W., 2007, Icarus, 189, 409

2007
[72]

of Phys.: Cond

Mozo R., Agusta M.K., Rahman M.M., A Diño W., Rodulfo E., Kasai H., 2007, Jour. of Phys.: Cond. Matter, 19, 36, 365244

2007
[73]

et al., 2022, Front

Mifsud D.V. et al., 2022, Front. in Chem., 10, id.1003163

2022
[74]

Mu\ noz Caro G.M., et al., 2010, A&A, 522, A108

2010
[75]

\"Oberg K.I., Fuchs G.W., Awad Z., Fraser H.J., Schlemmer S., van Dishoeck E.F., Linnartz H., 2007, 662-1, L23

2007
[76]

Perdew J.P., Burke K., Ernzerhof M., 1996, Phys. Rev. Lett., 77, 3865--3868

1996
[77]

Podio L., Codella C., Gueth F., et al., 2015, A&A, 581, A85

2015
[78]

Pollack J.B., Toon O.B., Boese R., 1980, J. Geophys. Res., 85, 8223

1980
[79]

Refson K., Tulip P.R., Clark S.J., 2006, Phys. Rev. B., 73, 155114

2006
[80]

2002, Phys

Rejoub R., Lindsay B.G., Stebbings R.F. 2002, Phys. Rev. A, 65, 042713

2002
[81]

Rivière-Marichalar P., et al., 2019, A&A, 628, A16

2019
[82]

Ruaud M., Wakelam V., Hersant F., 2016, MNRAS, 459, 3756

2016
[83]

Sakai N., Oya Y., L\'opez-Sepulcre A., et al., 2016, ApJL, 820, L34

2016
[84]

Sakai N., Oya Y., Sakai T., et al., 2014a, ApJL, 791, L38
[85]

Sakai N., Sakai T., Hirota T., et al., 2014b, Nature, 507, 78
[86]

Schriver-Mazzuoli L., Chaabouni H., Schriver A., 2003a, J. Mol. Str., 644, 151
[87]

Schriver-Mazzuoli L., Schriver A., Chaabouni H., 2003b, Can. J. Phys., 81, 301
[88]

Semenov D., Favre C., Fedele D., et al., 2018, A&A, 617, A28

2018
[89]

J., Greenberg J

Shen C. J., Greenberg J. M., Schutte W. A., van Dishoeck E. F., 2004, A&A, 415, 203

2004
[90]

Taillard A., et al., 2025a, A&A, 694, A263
[91]

Taillard A., et al., 2025b, A&A, submitted
[92]

van der Tak F.F.S., Boonman A.M.S., Braakman R., van Dishoeck E:F., 2003, A&A, 412, 133

2003
[93]

Wakelam V., Gratier P., Loison J.C., Hickson K.M., Penguen J., Mechineau A., 2024, A&A, 689, A63

2024
[94]

Wesemberg C., Autzen O., Hasselbrink E., 2007, Appl. Phys. A, 88, 559

2007
[95]

Yarnall Y.Y., Hudson R.L., 2022, ApJL, 931, L4

2022
[96]

Yung Y.L., Demore W.B., 1982, Icarus, 51, 199

1982

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

write newline

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

[2] [2]

Abergel A., et al., 2003, A&A, 410, 577

2003

[3] [3]

Anthony-Twarog B.J., 1982, AJ, 87, 1213

1982

[4] [4]

Artur de la Villarmois E., et al., 2018, A&A, 614, A26

2018

[5] [5]

Artur de la Villarmois E., J rgensen J.K., Kristensen L.E., Bergin E.A., Harsono D., Sakai N., van Dishoeck E.F., Yamamoto S., 2019, A&A, 626, A71

2019

[6] [6]

Bertin M., et al.,2012, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys., 14, 9929

2012

[7] [7]

Boissier J., et al., 2007, A&A, 475, 1131

2007

[8] [8]

Boogert A.C.A., Schutte W.A., Helmich F.P., Tielens A.G.G.M., Wooden D.H., 1997, A&A, 317, 929

1997