Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 179 references

First detection of deuterated molecules DCN and DNC in a translucent Galactic cloud, with enrichment more than two hundred times the cosmic D/H ratio, implying the cloud is a remnant of a dissipating dense core.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 17:41 UTC pith:P5PNXTHT

load-bearing objection Genuinely new detection of DCN/DNC in a translucent cloud, but the headline ratios rest on an optically thick HCN line and an assumed T_ex; the toy model is exactly that. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.17529 v1 pith:P5PNXTHT submitted 2026-07-20 astro-ph.GA

Anomalously high deuterium fractionation in a galactic translucent cloud: a challenge to chemical models

Gan Luo , Zhi-Yu Zhang , Thomas G. Bisbas , Di Li , Serena Viti , Roberto Neri , Junzhi Wang , Siyi Feng
show 3 more authors
Ningyu Tang Daniel R. Rybarczyk Lingrui Lin
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords deuterium fractionationtranslucent cloudsinterstellar mediumastrochemistryDCNDNCabsorption spectroscopychemical models
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper reports the first detection of the deuterated molecules DCN and DNC in absorption toward a Galactic translucent cloud—a cloud with visual extinction of only ~1.2 magnitudes and H2 density of roughly 400 cm-3, far lower than the dense cores where deuteration is normally seen. The measured deuterium fractions, DCN/HCN = (3.3 ± 0.6) × 10⁻³ and DNC/HNC = (3.6 ± 1.2) × 10⁻³, are more than two orders of magnitude above the elemental D/H ratio of 1.5 × 10⁻⁵. Established chemical models for such diffuse and translucent gas predict negligible deuteration, so the observation points to a missing mechanism or a different formation history. The authors argue that the gas acquired its deuterium-rich chemistry earlier, while it was still a dense core, and that the present cloud is a transient phase formed as that core dispersed. If correct, this would mean that translucent clouds can carry a chemical memory of a denser past, changing how such clouds and their deuteration are interpreted.

Core claim

Using sensitive interferometric absorption spectroscopy against a bright background source, the authors detect the J=1-0 transitions of DCN and DNC at a velocity component whose physical conditions are well constrained to AV = 1.2 ± 0.2 mag and n(H2) = 398 ± 22 cm⁻³. They derive DCN/HCN = (3.3 ± 0.6) × 10⁻³ and DNC/HNC = (3.6 ± 1.2) × 10⁻³, both more than two orders of magnitude above the cosmic D/H ratio. These ratios cannot be reproduced by steady-state chemical models of low-density gas; the closest published model under-predicts them by an order of magnitude even at a higher assumed density. Because the cloud is gravitationally unbound and shows no sign of embedded dense substructure, th

What carries the argument

The load-bearing technique is absorption spectroscopy of rotational ground-state lines against a strong continuum source, which allows detection of rare isotopologues at column densities far below what emission can reach. The supporting mechanism is a two-phase chemical toy model: an initial gravitational collapse phase to densities where deuterium fractionation is efficient, followed by a dispersal phase in which the density declines with time. The model shows that during the dispersal phase, DCN/HCN and DNC/HNC can remain at the observed levels for roughly 10⁵ years before photodissociation erases them, demonstrating that the observed chemistry can be a fossil of a denser past.

Load-bearing premise

The entire anomaly rests on the assumption that the measured line optical depths translate into column densities at a single excitation temperature of 2.73 K, and that the HCN absorption—measured to be optically thick with optical depth ~5.7—is correctly corrected for saturation; if either assumption fails, the derived DCN/HCN and DNC/HNC ratios could drop to ordinary values.

What would settle it

Observe the J=2-1 transitions of DCN and DNC (or any additional rotational lines) toward the same background source and derive an independent excitation temperature; if the actual T_ex is significantly higher than 2.73 K, the column densities—and hence the fractionation ratios—would be lower. Alternatively, compare the hyperfine components of HCN: if the F=2-1 line is saturated, the inferred total column density is an underestimate, and correcting for it would erase the anomaly. A survey of a dozen comparable translucent sightlines would show whether such high ratios are reproducible or a sing

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Deuterium fractionation is not restricted to dense cores; low-density clouds can show high D-fractions if their chemical history included a dense phase.
  • The non-detection of DCO+ alongside DCN/DNC provides a temperature diagnostic: the deuterium-enhancing H2D+ channel is suppressed in warmer post-dispersal gas, so the trio DCN, DNC, DCO+ can trace whether a translucent cloud was recently dense.
  • Existing equilibrium chemical models of diffuse and translucent clouds must be extended to include dynamical histories such as collapse and dispersal.
  • Absorption observations against background sources can push deuteration studies to much lower column densities than previously possible, opening a new regime for mapping deuteration across the Galaxy.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the dispersed-core scenario holds generally, the deuterium fractions of field translucent clouds could serve as a fossil record of local star-formation or core-formation activity, letting us identify recently dissipated cores without seeing the cores themselves.
  • A natural test would be to survey a sample of translucent sightlines at similar extinction; if high deuteration is rare, the single detection here may trace an unusual event, but if common, the standard assumption that translucent clouds form gradually from atomic gas needs revision.
  • The assumed excitation temperature of 2.73 K for all species is a known source of potential bias; a targeted search for higher-J DCN/DNC absorption or emission would settle whether the abundance ratios are as extreme as claimed.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports NOEMA absorption observations of J=1-0 transitions of HCN, HNC, HCO+, and their deuterated isotopologues toward the background source J0418+3801. The authors detect DCN (τ=0.011±0.001) and DNC (τ=0.005±0.001) at the −0.9 km/s component and derive DCN/HCN=(3.3±0.6)×10−3 and DNC/HNC=(3.6±1.2)×10−3 at A_V=1.2±0.2 mag and n_H2≈400 cm−3. These ratios are about 200 times the elemental D/H ratio. The paper argues that this is a significant departure from standard chemical models for translucent clouds and proposes a transient 'dispersed dense core' scenario, supported by a UCLCHEM toy model with a collapse phase followed by dispersal.

Significance. If the abundance ratios are correct, this would be the first detection of DCN and DNC in a Galactic translucent cloud and a valuable new constraint on deuterium chemistry in low-density molecular gas. The statistical quality of the line detections, the consistent velocities and line widths, and the use of absorption spectroscopy against a compact background source are strengths. The observed ratios exceed the Bell et al. (2011) model predictions by an order of magnitude even though the model uses a cooler gas temperature, which makes the potential challenge to chemical models interesting. The toy model is clearly labeled as demonstrative, and the authors explicitly acknowledge its incomplete network and parameter degeneracy, which is helpful for interpreting the theoretical section.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2, Table A.1, footnote 3] The central claim rests on abundance ratios whose denominator is the HCN column density derived from the optically thick main line (τ=5.7), and both N(HCN) and N(DCN) are obtained assuming a single excitation temperature T_ex=2.73 K. The statistical errors quoted in Table A.1 do not include these systematics. The footnote concedes that the ratio could be overestimated because of optically thick absorption, but no quantitative bound is given. Please estimate the sensitivity of DCN/HCN and DNC/HNC to (i) T_ex over the plausible subthermal range, e.g. 2–10 K, and (ii) the optical-depth correction for HCN/HNC, and report a robust lower limit. Without this, the claim that the ratios are 'anomalously high' at the stated factor cannot be evaluated.
  2. [§4 / Appendix E, Fig. E.1] The theoretical comparison uses the Bell et al. (2011) model with T_k=10 K and a specific density profile, while the target has T_k=55±2 K and n_H2≈4×10^2 cm−3. The conclusion that standard models 'predict negligible formation' would be much stronger if a chemical model were run directly at the derived conditions (T_k, n_H2, A_V, ζ2, G0) rather than only compared with a cooler, denser model. In addition, the toy model in Appendix E is explicitly incomplete and non-unique, and in Fig. E.1 the predicted DCO+/HCO+ appears to exceed the observed 3σ upper limit at the same epoch where DCN/HCN is reproduced. This tension is mentioned in the appendix but not in the main discussion; it should be addressed or explicitly stated as a limitation of the toy model.
  3. [Appendix B / §3.2] The derived volume density n_H2=398±22 cm−3 comes from a single-component RADEX fit to 13CO and NH3. Because the NOEMA continuum source is compact (~400 au), the DCN/DNC absorption could in principle arise from a denser, sub-resolution clump along the line of sight, which would naturally produce enhanced deuterium fractionation. The paper states that there is no evidence for a dense region, but it does not quantify a covering fraction or column-density limit for such a component. Please add a quantitative argument that a dense clump with n~10^3–10^4 cm−3 is excluded, or state the remaining degeneracy explicitly. This bears on whether the result is really a translucent-cloud anomaly or a small dense-core signature.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table A.1] The note '(a) Optical depth of J=1-0, F=2-1 transition' is ambiguous: it appears to apply to both H12CN and DCN, but DCN has its own hyperfine structure. Please specify the hyperfine component used for each species.
  2. [Appendix C] The adopted A_V=1.2±0.2 mag is an average of values obtained from CH (0.85 mag) and 13CO (1.5 mag). The stated error does not include the systematic difference between the two methods. A sentence explaining why the average is preferred and how model predictions depend on this range would be useful.
  3. [Appendix E] The approximation of including only para-H2 in the chemical network is stated, and its effect on DCO+ is mentioned. Please also note explicitly that DCN/HNC predictions can be sensitive to the ortho/para-H2 ratio, since the paper currently notes the limitation only in the context of DCO+.
  4. [Fig. 1 caption] The caption says the red dotted curves denote the 5σ noise level in (a) and the 3σ level in (b) and (c). For DCO+ the artificial 3σ signal is also shown; please specify in the caption which curve is the noise and which is the artificial signal, and whether the DCO+ upper limit is channel-based or integrated.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the deuterium ratios are measured observables and the model comparison is external or explicitly demonstrative.

full rationale

The paper's load-bearing claim is an observational detection: DCN and DNC absorption optical depths are measured toward J0418+3801 (Sect. 3.1), column densities are derived with the standard LTE formula (Appendix A, Mangum & Shirley 2015), and the DCN/HCN and DNC/HNC ratios are computed directly from these column densities. No parameter is fitted to the reported ratios and then re-predicted. The comparison with Bell et al. (2011) uses an externally published chemical model, not a model calibrated on the present observations. The authors' own 'two-phase' toy model (Appendix E) is explicitly framed as a demonstration, not a unique prediction: 'We emphasize that the parameters we used in our toy models are not the only recipe that can yield this solution' and 'the scope of the toy model is not to find a prediction that matches perfectly with all observables, but to demonstrate that the scenario of a dispersal cloud can lead to the observed deuterium fraction.' These statements pre-empt any reading of the toy model as a fitted-input-called-prediction. The caveat that the ratio 'could be slightly overestimated due to the underestimation of column density from optically thick absorptions' is a quantified-uncertainty caveat about the HCN optical depth (τ = 5.7, Table A.1), not a circular reduction. Self-citations (e.g., Luo et al. 2024b for the optically-thick correction) are methodological references and do not supply the central result. The assumption T_ex = 2.73 K is a physical assumption, not a definitional embedding of the target ratio. Thus the derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks and no step reduces to its own inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central observational result rests on standard spectral-line assumptions (T_ex, isotopic ratios). The toy model introduces several free parameters but they are not fitted to the data; rather, they are chosen to illustrate a scenario. No new physical entities are invented.

free parameters (5)
  • n_ph1 (maximum density in collapsing phase) = 10^3.0, 10^3.5, 10^4.0, 10^4.5 cm^-3 (varied)
    Free parameter in toy model; varied to show dispersal scenario can reproduce observed ratios. Not fitted to data, but chosen by hand.
  • t0/alpha (dispersal timescale) = 5e4 yr
    Chosen so the cloud disperses over a few 10^5 yr. Adjustable parameter in the density evolution equation E.1.
  • Initial density n_ini = 10^2 cm^-3
    Starting density of phase1 collapse in toy model; chosen, not measured.
  • External FUV field chi/chi0 = 1
    Assumed standard ISRF. Not fitted, but affects photodissociation rates in the model.
  • Cosmic-ray ionization rate zeta2 = 1.7e-17 s^-1
    Adopted, not measured; affects deuteration chemistry.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption Excitation temperature T_ex = 2.73 K for all observed transitions (Appendix A)
    Required to convert optical depths to column densities. If actual T_ex differs, column densities and ratios change.
  • domain assumption 12C/13C = 74 (Lucas & Liszt 1998)
    Used to derive HCO+ column density from H13CO+. Fractionation could bias this value (noted in footnote 5).
  • domain assumption N_CH/N_H2 = 3.5e-8 (Sheffer et al. 2008)
    Used to convert CH column density to H2 column density in Appendix C.
  • domain assumption 12CO/H2 = 1e-4
    Used to convert 13CO column density to H2 column density in Appendix C.
  • domain assumption N_H/A_V = 1.89e21 atoms cm^-2 mag^-1
    Standard conversion used to compute A_V in Appendix C.
  • ad hoc to paper Chemical network of Majumdar et al. (2017) is complete enough for deuterium species
    The toy model uses a specific network, which the authors admit is incomplete (e.g., no ortho/para H2, limited species). This is a stated limitation that affects the model predictions.
  • domain assumption Bell et al. (2011) model parameters (Tk=10 K, n0=888 cm^-3) are representative for comparison
    The model prediction comparison in Fig. 2 relies on this model; the authors note a higher T would reduce the predicted fraction.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 3730 in / 5261 out tokens · 61952 ms · 2026-08-01T17:41:30.637471+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Deuterated (D-) species have long been proposed to diagnose the physical conditions and chemical evolution of cold dense molecular clouds. While deuterium fractionation has been extensively measured in dense cores, observations in diffuse and translucent clouds remain rare. We report here the detection of DCN and DNC toward a translucent cloud ($A_{\rm V} =1.2\pm0.2$ mag, $n_{\rm H_2}$ = $3.9\pm0.2\times10^2$ cm$^{-3}$) through sensitive absorption observations with the IRAM NOrthern Extended Millimeter Array (NOEMA). This detection reaches the lowest column-density and volume-density regime in which deuteration has been observed so far. Interestingly, the observed DCN/HCN and DNC/HNC abundance ratios ($3.3\pm0.6\times10^{-3}$ and $3.6\pm1.2\times10^{-3}$, respectively), which are more than two orders of magnitude higher than the element abundance [D]/[H] (1.5$\times$10$^{-5}$), suggest an unexpected enhancement of deuterium fractionation in the translucent cloud. These results represent a significant departure from established chemical models considering deuterium fractionation, which predict negligible formation of D-molecules in such environments. Although it remains unclear how D-molecules built up their abundances in translucent gas, a dispersed dense core scenario could potentially explain the observed high deuterium fraction. This interpretation is consistent with the idea proposed by Price et al. (2003) more than two decades ago: a translucent cloud may be a transient, dynamically evolving structure formed through the dissipation of a dense molecular cloud.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.17529 by Daniel R. Rybarczyk, Di Li, Gan Luo, Junzhi Wang, Lingrui Lin, Ningyu Tang, Roberto Neri, Serena Viti, Siyi Feng, Thomas G. Bisbas, Zhi-Yu Zhang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Normalized spectra of DCN (a), DNC (b), DCO+ (c), HCN (d), HNC (e), and HCO+ (f) J = 1-0 transitions. The red dashed curve in each panel represents the fitting to the spectra, except for DCO+ , where we outline the artificial 3σ signal (channel-based) using the same line width as H 13CO+ . The red dotted curves denote 5σ noise level in (a) and 3σ noise level in (b) and (c). (a) (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figure… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: (a): The comparison of the observed abundance ratios of DCN/HCN at different AV in the literature, the values of AV in dense cores are converted through AV = NH/(1.89 × 1021) mag. The red dot represents our measurement. Black triangles represent data taken from dark clouds (Turner 2001), blue squares denote values from massive star-forming regions (Gerner et al. 2015), and purple points are taken from infr… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Predicted DCN/HCN (blue), DNC/HNC (orange), and DCO+ /HCO+ (red) ratios as a function of time from dispersal cloud models. The density on the top represents the maximum density in the collapsing phase. The black dotted line denotes the density function in the dispersal phase. The blue and orange shadowed regions are the ob￾served DCN/HCN and DNC/HNC ratios with 1σ uncertainties, and red dashed lines repres… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

179 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    T., & Herbst , E

    Aikawa , Y., Wakelam , V., Hersant , F., Garrod , R. T., & Herbst , E. 2012, , 760, 40

    2012

  2. [2]

    2003, , 585, L55

    Bacmann , A., Lefloch , B., Ceccarelli , C., et al. 2003, , 585, L55

    2003

  3. [3]

    A., Willacy , K., Phillips , T

    Bell , T. A., Willacy , K., Phillips , T. G., Allen , M., & Lis , D. C. 2011, , 731, 48

    2011

  4. [4]

    Boesgaard , A. M. & Steigman , G. 1985, , 23, 319

    1985

  5. [5]

    M., Zucconi , A., et al

    Caselli , P., Walmsley , C. M., Zucconi , A., et al. 2002, , 565, 344

    2002

  6. [6]

    2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed

    Ceccarelli , C., Caselli , P., Bockel \'e e-Morvan , D., et al. 2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed. H. Beuther , R. S. Klessen , C. P. Dullemond , & T. Henning , 859--882

    2014

  7. [7]

    M., et al

    Colzi , L., Mart \' n-Pintado , J., Rivilla , V. M., et al. 2022, , 926, L22

    2022

  8. [8]

    2020, , 640, A51

    Colzi , L., Sipil \"a , O., Roueff , E., Caselli , P., & Fontani , F. 2020, , 640, A51

    2020

  9. [9]

    M., et al

    Crapsi , A., Caselli , P., Walmsley , C. M., et al. 2005, , 619, 379

    2005

  10. [10]

    Crutcher , R. M. 2012, , 50, 29

    2012

  11. [11]

    Draine , B. T. 1978, , 36, 595

    1978

  12. [12]

    I., Lattimer , J

    Epstein , R. I., Lattimer , J. M., & Schramm , D. N. 1976, , 263, 198

    1976

  13. [13]

    2019, , 883, 202

    Feng , S., Caselli , P., Wang , K., et al. 2019, , 883, 202

    2019

  14. [14]

    2020, , 901, 145

    Feng , S., Li , D., Caselli , P., et al. 2020, , 901, 145

    2020

  15. [15]

    Flower , D. R. & Watt , G. D. 1984, , 209, 25

    1984

  16. [16]

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

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

    2013

  17. [17]

    D., Chayer , P., Jenkins , E

    Friedman , S. D., Chayer , P., Jenkins , E. B., et al. 2023, , 946, 34

    2023

  18. [18]

    L., Beuther , H., et al

    Gerner , T., Shirley , Y. L., Beuther , H., et al. 2015, , 579, A80

    2015

  19. [19]

    2022, , 664, A119

    Giers , K., Spezzano , S., Alves , F., et al. 2022, , 664, A119

    2022

  20. [20]

    2010, , 520, A20

    Godard , B., Falgarone , E., Gerin , M., Hily-Blant , P., & de Luca , M. 2010, , 520, A20

    2010

  21. [21]

    M., Murphy , M

    Henkel , C., Menten , K. M., Murphy , M. T., et al. 2009, , 500, 725

    2009

  22. [22]

    2017, , 154, 38

    Holdship , J., Viti , S., Jim \'e nez-Serra , I., Makrymallis , A., & Priestley , F. 2017, , 154, 38

    2017

  23. [23]

    M., Menten , K

    Jacob , A. M., Menten , K. M., Wiesemeyer , H., & Ortiz-Le \'o n , G. N. 2021, , 650, A133

    2021

  24. [24]

    S., J rgensen , J

    Jensen , S. S., J rgensen , J. K., Kristensen , L. E., et al. 2019, , 631, A25

    2019

  25. [25]

    K., Belloche , A., & Garrod , R

    J rgensen , J. K., Belloche , A., & Garrod , R. T. 2020, , 58, 727

    2020

  26. [26]

    J., Lewis , J

    Lada , C. J., Lewis , J. A., Lombardi , M., & Alves , J. 2017, , 606, A100

    2017

  27. [27]

    Linsky , J. L. 2003, , 106, 49

    2003

  28. [28]

    L., Draine , B

    Linsky , J. L., Draine , B. T., Moos , H. W., et al. 2006, , 647, 1106

    2006

  29. [29]

    & Gerin , M

    Liszt , H. & Gerin , M. 2023 a , , 943, 172

    2023

  30. [30]

    & Gerin , M

    Liszt , H. & Gerin , M. 2023 b , , 675, A145

    2023

  31. [31]

    & Lucas , R

    Liszt , H. & Lucas , R. 1996, , 314, 917

    1996

  32. [32]

    & Lucas , R

    Liszt , H. & Lucas , R. 2002, , 391, 693

    2002

  33. [33]

    Liszt , H. S. 2007, , 476, 291

    2007

  34. [34]

    Liszt , H. S. & Lucas , R. 1998, , 339, 561

    1998

  35. [35]

    S., Lucas , R., & Pety , J

    Liszt , H. S., Lucas , R., & Pety , J. 2006, , 448, 253

    2006

  36. [36]

    Loreau , J., Faure , A., Lique , F., Demes , S., & Dagdigian , P. J. 2023, , 526, 3213

    2023

  37. [37]

    & Liszt , H

    Lucas , R. & Liszt , H. 1996, , 307, 237

    1996

  38. [38]

    & Liszt , H

    Lucas , R. & Liszt , H. 1998, , 337, 246

    1998

  39. [39]

    G., Padovani , M., & Gaches , B

    Luo , G., Bisbas , T. G., Padovani , M., & Gaches , B. A. L. 2024 a , , 690, A293

    2024

  40. [40]

    2024 b , , 690, A372

    Luo , G., Colzi , L., Liu , T., et al. 2024 b , , 690, A372

    2024

  41. [41]

    M., Padovani , M., et al

    Luo , G., Jacob , A. M., Padovani , M., et al. 2025, , 703, A159

    2025

  42. [42]

    2020, , 889, L4

    Luo , G., Li , D., Tang , N., et al. 2020, , 889, L4

    2020

  43. [43]

    G., et al

    Luo , G., Zhang , Z.-Y., Bisbas , T. G., et al. 2023, , 946, 91

    2023

  44. [44]

    2017, , 466, 4470

    Majumdar , L., Gratier , P., Ruaud , M., et al. 2017, , 466, 4470

    2017

  45. [45]

    Mangum , J. G. & Shirley , Y. L. 2015, , 127, 266

    2015

  46. [46]

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

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

    2007

  47. [47]

    J., Bennett , A., & Herbst , E

    Millar , T. J., Bennett , A., & Herbst , E. 1989, , 340, 906

    1989

  48. [48]

    C., Liu , H

    Minh , Y. C., Liu , H. B., Galva \'n -Madrid , R., et al. 2018, , 864, 102

    2018

  49. [49]

    2025, , 696, A140

    Mo , F., Wang , J., Liu , S., et al. 2025, , 696, A140

    2025

  50. [50]

    H., et al

    Muller , S., Beelen , A., Black , J. H., et al. 2013, , 551, A109

    2013

  51. [51]

    2011, , 535, A103

    Muller , S., Beelen , A., Gu \'e lin , M., et al. 2011, , 535, A103

    2011

  52. [52]

    H., et al

    Muller , S., Roueff , E., Black , J. H., et al. 2020, , 637, A7

    2020

  53. [53]

    E., Stanimirovi \'c , S., Goss , W

    Murray , C. E., Stanimirovi \'c , S., Goss , W. M., et al. 2018, , 238, 14

    2018

  54. [54]

    & Li , Z.-Y

    Nakamura , F. & Li , Z.-Y. 2005, , 631, 411

    2005

  55. [55]

    2021, , 653, A15

    Navarro-Almaida , D., Fuente , A., Majumdar , L., et al. 2021, , 653, A15

    2021

  56. [56]

    Offner , S. S. R., Taylor , J., Markey , C., et al. 2022, , 517, 885

    2022

  57. [57]

    M., H \'e brard , G., Howk , J

    Oliveira , C. M., H \'e brard , G., Howk , J. C., et al. 2003, , 587, 235

    2003

  58. [58]

    2005, in SF2A-2005: Semaine de l'Astrophysique Francaise, ed

    Pety , J. 2005, in SF2A-2005: Semaine de l'Astrophysique Francaise, ed. F. Casoli , T. Contini , J. M. Hameury , & L. Pagani , 721

    2005

  59. [59]

    J., Viti , S., & Williams , D

    Price , R. J., Viti , S., & Williams , D. A. 2003, , 343, 1257

    2003

  60. [60]

    D., Viti , S., & Williams , D

    Priestley , F. D., Viti , S., & Williams , D. A. 2018, , 156, 51

    2018

  61. [61]

    2007, , 464, 245

    Roueff , E., Parise , B., & Herbst , E. 2007, , 464, 245

    2007

  62. [62]

    R., Gong , M., Stanimirovi \'c , S., et al

    Rybarczyk , D. R., Gong , M., Stanimirovi \'c , S., et al. 2022 a , , 926, 190

    2022

  63. [63]

    R., Stanimirovi \'c , S., Gong , M., et al

    Rybarczyk , D. R., Stanimirovi \'c , S., Gong , M., et al. 2022 b , , 928, 79

    2022

  64. [64]

    R., Stanimirovi \'c , S., & Gusdorf , A

    Rybarczyk , D. R., Stanimirovi \'c , S., & Gusdorf , A. 2023, , 950, 52

    2023

  65. [65]

    Rydbeck , O. E. H., Kollberg , E., Hjalmarson , A., et al. 1976, , 31, 333

    1976

  66. [66]

    R., et al

    Sheffer , Y., Rogers , M., Federman , S. R., et al. 2008, , 687, 1075

    2008

  67. [67]

    N., Bergner , J

    Shingledecker , C. N., Bergner , J. B., Le Gal , R., et al. 2016, , 830, 151

    2016

  68. [68]

    2023, , 678, A120

    Sipil \"a , O., Colzi , L., Roueff , E., et al. 2023, , 678, A120

    2023

  69. [69]

    A., Kratter , K

    Smullen , R. A., Kratter , K. M., Offner , S. S. R., Lee , A. T., & Chen , H. H.-H. 2020, , 497, 4517

    2020

  70. [70]

    Snow , T. P. & McCall , B. J. 2006, , 44, 367

    2006

  71. [71]

    2021, , 257, 47

    Tang , N., Li , D., Luo , G., et al. 2021, , 257, 47

    2021

  72. [72]

    Turner , B. E. 2001, , 136, 579

    2001

  73. [73]

    van der Tak , F. F. S., Black , J. H., Sch \"o ier , F. L., Jansen , D. J., & van Dishoeck , E. F. 2007, , 468, 627

    2007

  74. [74]

    Watson , W. D. 1976, Reviews of Modern Physics, 48, 513

    1976

  75. [75]

    Wilson , T. L. & Rood , R. 1994, , 32, 191

    1994

  76. [76]

    Xie , T., Allen , M., & Langer , W. D. 1995, , 440, 674

    1995

  77. [77]

    C., Balakrishnan , N., & Forrey , R

    Yang , B., Stancil , P. C., Balakrishnan , N., & Forrey , R. C. 2010, , 718, 1062

    2010

  78. [78]

    , keywords =

    A precise and accurate determination of the cosmic microwave background temperature at z = 0.89. , keywords =. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201220613 , archivePrefix =. 1212.5456 , primaryClass =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  79. [79]

    A 4-mm-rest-frame absorption-line survey toward PKS 1830-211

    Molecules at z = 0.89. A 4-mm-rest-frame absorption-line survey toward PKS 1830-211. , keywords =. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201117096 , archivePrefix =. 1104.3361 , primaryClass =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  80. [80]

    , keywords =

    The density, the cosmic microwave background, and the proton-to-electron mass ratio in a cloud at redshift 0.9. , keywords =. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200811475 , archivePrefix =. 0904.3081 , primaryClass =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

Showing first 80 references.