Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 90 references

Constraining the detectability of water ice in debris disks

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that the 3 μm and 44 μm water-ice features are potentially detectable in debris disks with JWST/NIRCam and SPICA/SAFARI, which would make the location of the ice survival line testable.

desk verdict Careful forward model with genuinely useful ice optical constants and testable predictions, but the headline JWST/SPICA detectability claim rests on dimensionless brightness ratios with no SNR analysis — and under the paper's own photosputtering cases the relevant absolute fluxes drop by orders of magnitude. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.07354 v1 pith:E33TKLOE submitted 2019-08-20 astro-ph.EP

Minjae Kim , Sebastian Wolf , Alexey Potapov , Harald Mutschke , Cornelia Jäger This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords watericedebrisdiskssurvivallineradiativetransferspectralenergydistributionpolarizationJWSTSPICA
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 asks whether telescopes that are coming online soon could actually see water ice in debris disks, the dusty leftovers of planet formation. Using numerical simulations of a typical beta-Pictoris-like disk, the authors find that the two strongest water-ice spectral signatures, the roughly 3 micron O-H stretch feature and the roughly 44 micron lattice-vibration feature, should stand out enough from the disk continuum to be detectable with JWST/NIRCam and SPICA/SAFARI. The result matters because water ice in debris disks has been nearly invisible to current instruments, and knowing where ice can survive is a direct constraint on where water can be delivered to planets. The paper also predicts that the ice survival line sits between about 4.4 and 26.3 au, depending on ice fraction, ice phase, and grain porosity.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a parameterized radiative-transfer simulation of an optically thin debris disk, using Maxwell-Garnett effective-medium theory to build optical constants for inhomogeneous ice-silicate-vacuum mixtures, Mie-theory cross sections, and the DMS code to synthesize spectral energy distributions, spatially resolved images, and polarization maps. The ice destruction mechanisms enter by truncating the grain size distribution and the inner disk radius: sublimation sets a temperature boundary, while UV photosputtering and collisions determine the smallest grains that survive at a given radius. The load-bearing comparisons are surface-brightness ratios at 2.8 and 3.2 microns and at 35 and 44 microns, which isolate the ice features from the continuum.

What would settle it

Take a debris disk matching the fiducial model (A6 V star, 19.3 pc, $10^{-8}$ solar masses of dust, inner edge 3 au, ice fraction around 0.5) and observe it with NIRCam at 2.8 and 3.2 microns and with SAFARI at 35 and 44 microns. If the 3.2/2.8 and 44/35 surface-brightness ratios are consistent with unity at the instrument noise level, or if the continuum is detected and the features are absent, the predicted detectability and the assumed ice survival are falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that the 3 micron and 44 micron water-ice features are potentially detectable in future observations of typical debris disks, provided the disk has something like $10^{-8}$ solar masses of dust at about 19 pc and ice fractions comparable to those assumed. It further shows that sublimation, planetesimal collisions, and UV photosputtering each change the predicted observables: photosputtering wipes out small ice grains and weakens or removes the 44 micron feature, collisional activity partially restores small grains in inner regions, and the remaining feature strength is set by the ice-to-silicate fraction. The predicted location of the ice survival line moves inward for lower ice fractions and outward for higher porosity, ranging from 4.4 au for pure compact ice to 26.3 au for icy-silicate aggregates, and the 3 micron band shows enhanced polarization for ice-rich or highly porous grains. The detectability argument is made through surface-brightness ratios inside and outside each ice band rather than through absolute sensitivity or exposure-time calculations.

Load-bearing premise

The detectability claim rests on the assumed absolute brightness level: a disk with $10^{-8}$ solar masses of dust at 19.3 pc, and if a real target is ten times less massive, the ice features would be ten times fainter while the paper gives only feature-to-continuum ratios, not a noise or exposure-time analysis.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • JWST/NIRCam and SPICA/SAFARI observations could confirm or rule out water ice in nearby debris disks, a question current data leave essentially open.
  • A detection would make the ice survival line an observable quantity: the inner edge of the ice reservoir could be measured and compared with the predicted 4.4-26.3 au range.
  • The 3 micron polarization signal gives a way to distinguish ice-rich, porous grains from silicate-dominated grains in scattered light.
  • The 44 micron and 62 micron far-infrared features are clean tracers of ice-rich aggregates because they are not confused with other solid-state bands, unlike many mid-infrared features.
  • If the features are not seen despite a detected disk, the non-detection would constrain the ice fraction or the efficiency of UV photosputtering and collisions in destroying ice.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the detectability argument rests on feature-to-continuum ratios, the practical reach likely extends to more distant or less massive disks only with longer integrations; the 3 micron feature, present even in ice-poor aggregates, is the more robust detection channel, while the 44 micron feature is a better compositional diagnostic for ice-rich material.
  • The predicted dependence of the ice survival line on porosity suggests that spatially resolving the region where the spectral index jumps could be used to measure grain porosity, not just ice presence.
  • The same simulation machinery could be applied to disks around cooler or more UV-active stars, where photosputtering would move the survival line and change which disks show the features; this is a testable extension not considered in the paper.
  • The steep submillimeter spectral index predicted for pure crystalline ice could allow multi-wavelength submillimeter maps to distinguish crystalline from amorphous ice even when the 44 micron band is too faint to detect.
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. The paper presents a forward-modeling feasibility study of detecting water ice in debris disks with future instruments (JWST/NIRCam and SPICA/SAFARI). It constructs icy dust mixtures from laboratory-measured optical constants for amorphous and crystalline ice and astrosilicate, treats sublimation, UV photosputtering, and collisional dust production as destruction mechanisms, and computes synthetic SEDs, spatially resolved surface-brightness maps, polarization maps, and spectral-index maps using the DMS code. The main claims are that the ~3 micron and ~44 micron water ice features can potentially be detected in typical debris disks, that destruction mechanisms strongly shape the observable appearance, that highly porous or ice-rich grains produce enhanced polarization near 3 microns, and that the ice survival line lies at about 4.4-26.3 au for blowout-sized grains in the reference model.

Significance. If the detectability claim were quantitatively supported, the paper would provide directly usable predictions for JWST and SPICA programs aimed at confirming or ruling out water ice in debris disks, and the predicted ice survival line would become a testable diagnostic. The paper has several strengths: all model parameters are explicitly stated in Table 1; the optical constants are tied to specific laboratory measurements; the forward-modeling pipeline (DMS, Miex) is described and is appropriate for optically thin disks; and the inclusion of UV photosputtering and collisional processing alongside sublimation goes beyond earlier studies. The results on polarization and on the ice survival line are interesting even independently of the detectability claim. The central weakness is that the 'detectability' conclusion in Section 4.4 is drawn from dimensionless surface-brightness ratios without any calculation of absolute signal, instrument sensitivity, noise, or exposure time, so the headline claim is not yet established. This gap is substantive but fixable, and the underlying modeling appears internally consistent.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.4, Figs. 16 and 17] The detectability claim in the abstract and in Section 4.4 rests on dimensionless surface-brightness ratios (SB(2.8 um)/SB(3.2 um) and SB(35 um)/SB(44 um)). These ratios are independent of the adopted dust mass (10^-8 M_sun) and distance (19.3 pc), and the section contains no signal-to-noise calculation, no instrument sensitivity limit, no PSF or aperture treatment, and no exposure-time estimate for JWST/NIRCam or SPICA/SAFARI. A ratio significantly different from unity does not by itself show that the absolute surface brightness exceeds the instrument noise, especially for an optically thin disk whose surface brightness can be orders of magnitude below the photospheric background or the confusion limit. The authors should either add a quantitative detectability analysis (e.g., predicted SNR versus exposure time for representative radial positions and for the stated reference model) or explicitly temper the claim to say that the features produce favorable contrast ratios in the models, with detectability to be assessed in a subsequent instrument study.
  2. [Section 4.1.1 (Fig. 5), Section 4.2.1 (Fig. 11), and Fig. 16] There is a direct conflict between the reported absolute flux reduction and the way detectability is argued for the 3 micron feature. Section 4.1.1 states that UV photosputtering reduces the near-IR to mid-IR flux by about eight orders of magnitude relative to the sublimation-only case, and the radial profiles in Fig. 11 show that the photosputtering cases have extremely low absolute surface brightness at 2.2 and 3.5 microns. Nevertheless, the left panel of Fig. 16 shows high surface-brightness ratios for the photosputtering cases, and Section 4.4 uses such ratios as evidence of detectability. A ratio based on two faint signals does not indicate that either signal is detectable. The authors should either provide absolute surface brightness values together with sensitivity thresholds for the relevant radii and wavelengths, or restrict the detectability claim to the cases (sublimation-only or collision+photosputtering) for which the absolute flux could plausibly be observed.
  3. [Table 1 and Section 4.4] The reference model assumes a dust mass of 10^-8 M_sun and a distance of 19.3 pc. The observed debris disk dust mass range quoted in Section 3 is 10^-9 to several times 10^-7 M_sun, so a disk at the low-mass end would be ten times fainter in absolute flux than the reference model, and the feature-to-continuum ratios presented in Figs. 16 and 17 are insensitive to this factor. Since the paper's stated goal is to constrain detectability in 'typical' debris disks, the authors should quantify how the detectability conclusion scales with dust mass and distance, or state explicitly which sub-range of the observed parameter space the conclusion covers. Without this, the headline claim is not matched to the stated scope.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section 4.4] The manuscript interchangeably describes 'the 3 um ice feature' and uses wavelengths of 2.8 and 3.2 um as the 'outside' and 'inside' bands in Fig. 16; please clarify once in the text whether the feature peak is at 2.8, 3.0, or 3.2 um and how the chosen comparison wavelengths relate to the feature profile, so that the reader can interpret the ratios correctly.
  2. [Table 1] The distance of 19.3 pc is listed in Table 1 without a reference; since this is a specific value for the beta Pic-like star, the authors should cite the source (e.g., Crifo et al. 1997 or a parallax catalog) in the table caption or in Section 3.
  3. [Section 4.2 and Appendix A] The color scales in Figs. A.1, A.2, and A.3 use different flux ranges (e.g., 10^-14 to 10^-1, 10^-13 to 10^1, and 10^-9 to 10^-1 Jy/arcsec^2, respectively), which makes cross-comparison of absolute surface brightness between the different destruction-mechanism and composition cases difficult; consider using a common scale or explicitly noting the range differences in each caption.
  4. [Section 4.3.2 and Figure 15] The text in Section 4.3.2 says 'the snow line causes a radial discontinuity' and then discusses the 'ice survival line'; since Section 2 explicitly distinguishes these terms, the wording in Section 4.3.2 should be harmonized to avoid confusing the protoplanetary-disk snow line with the debris-disk ice survival line.
  5. [Figures 16 and 17] The captions of Figs. 16 and 17 state that solid and dashed lines indicate amorphous and crystalline ice, respectively, but the left panels contain multiple line styles for different destruction mechanisms; please make the line-style/color legend complete within each panel so each curve is identifiable.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: forward-model feasibility study whose synthetic ice features are conditional model outputs, not fitted or renamed inputs.

full rationale

This paper is a numerical feasibility/forward-modeling study, not an inversion or fit. The synthetic SEDs, images, and polarization maps are produced by feeding laboratory-measured complex refractive indices (Figs. 1-2), effective-medium mixing (Ossenkopf 1991), a Dohnanyi size distribution, and destruction prescriptions from Grigorieva et al. (2007) into the DMS radiative-transfer code (Kim et al. 2018). The resulting 3 and 44 micron features are inherited from the input ice optical constants; that is the intended conditional logic of a detectability study ("if ice is present with these properties, features appear"), not a circular derivation. No parameter is fitted to debris-disk observations, and no quantity used as a prediction is defined in terms of another predicted quantity. The ice survival line is derived from assumed sublimation temperatures and calculated grain temperatures, so it is a model output rather than a restatement of the input. The strongest weakness is that Section 4.4 supports "potentially detected" with dimensionless surface-brightness ratios rather than instrument sensitivity or exposure-time calculations, and the adopted dust mass (10^-8 M_sun) and distance (19.3 pc) set the absolute flux; this is a completeness and correctness concern, not circularity. Self-citations to Kim et al. (2018), Potapov et al. (2018a,b), Potapov et al. (2019), and Reinert et al. (2015) are code and laboratory-data citations whose content is independent of the present conclusions and is not invoked as a uniqueness proof or a forbidden-alternative argument. No equation in the paper reduces by construction to an input, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

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

No free parameters are fit to observational data; all inputs are chosen from prior literature or varied on a grid. The most load-bearing choices are the dust mass, distance, and size distribution, which set the absolute flux scale behind the detectability claim, and the photosputtering/collision boundaries inherited from Grigorieva et al. (2007). No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Dust mass = 1e-8 M_sun
    Chosen from the typical debris disk range (Greaves et al. 2005), not fit to data. It sets the absolute flux level in every SED and image, so the JWST/SPICA detectability claim scales linearly with this choice.
  • Distance to the system = 19.3 pc
    Adopted for the fiducial beta Pic-like disk; surface brightness and any eventual SNR estimate scale with distance. No real target is analyzed, so this choice is arbitrary for the generic claim.
  • Disk inclination and scattering angle = 0 deg face-on; 90 deg scattering
    Face-on geometry and a 90 degree scattering angle maximize the polarization signal, making the polarization diagnostic optimistic relative to most real viewing geometries.
  • Grain size range and slope = 0.1 to 1000 um, power -3.5
    Standard Dohnanyi collisional cascade; the small-grain end produces the 3 um feature, so this assumption strongly affects the feature detectability and the UV photosputtering results.
  • Photosputtering/collision boundaries = 5 mm at 80 au; 20 um at 40 au
    Adopted from Grigorieva et al. (2007) as fixed boundaries rather than computed self-consistently; these determine whether small ice grains, which carry the 3 um feature, survive.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Maxwell-Garnett effective medium theory accurately captures the optical properties of porous, core-mantle, and platelet icy aggregates.
    Invoked in Section 3 via the emc code; the forward model, including the polarization predictions, depends on this mixing rule being representative for fluffy grains.
  • domain assumption Debris disks are optically thin to stellar UV radiation.
    Section 2: UV photosputtering reaching large distances is the basis for the destruction mechanism treatment; opacity effects would weaken this.
  • standard math The Dohnanyi size distribution n(a) proportional to a^-3.5 holds across 0.1 to 1000 microns.
    Section 3; standard collisional cascade result, but the authors note that radiation-pressure-driven modifications are not included.
  • domain assumption Sublimation temperatures of 100 K (amorphous) and 105 K (crystalline) ice apply inside aggregates.
    Section 3, based on Brown et al. 2006 and Kobayashi et al. 2010; these set the inner boundary and the ice survival line.
  • ad hoc to paper The two-step temperature scheme is adequate without iteration.
    Section 3: the radial temperature is first computed with median 55 K optical data, then observables are computed with temperature-dependent data, but the temperature field is not updated in a second iteration.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Constraining the detectability of water ice in debris disks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/E33TKLOE

@misc{pith2026190807354,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Constraining the detectability of water ice in debris disks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/E33TKLOE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.07354}
}
abstract

Water ice is important for the evolution and preservation of life. Identifying the distribution of water ice in debris disks is therefore of great interest in the field of astrobiology. Furthermore, icy dust grains are expected to play important roles throughout the entire planet formation process. However, currently available observations only allow deriving weak conclusions about the existence of water ice in debris disks. We investigate whether it is feasible to detect water ice in typical debris disk systems. We take the following ice destruction mechanisms into account: sublimation of ice, dust production through planetesimal collisions, and photosputtering by UV-bright central stars. We consider icy dust mixture particles with various shapes consisting of amorphous ice, crystalline ice, astrosilicate, and vacuum inclusions. We calculated optical properties of inhomogeneous icy dust mixtures using effective medium theories, that is, Maxwell-Garnett rules. Subsequently, we generated synthetic debris disk observables, such as spectral energy distributions and spatially resolved thermal reemission and scattered light intensity and polarization maps with our code DMS. We find that the prominent $\sim$ 3 $\mu\rm{m}$ and 44 $\mu\rm{m}$ water ice features can be potentially detected in future observations of debris disks with the James Webb Space Telescope and the Space Infrared telescope for Cosmology and Astrophysics. We show that the sublimation of ice, collisions between planetesimals, and photosputtering caused by UV sources clearly affect the observational appearance of debris disk systems. In addition, highly porous ice tends to produce highly polarized radiation at around 3 $\mu\rm{m}$. Finally, the location of the ice survival line is determined by various dust properties such as a fractional ratio of ice versus dust, physical states of ice, and the porosity of icy grains.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.07354 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Optical constants n and k, i.e., the real and imaginary part of the refractive index, of pure amorphous ice and crystalline ice depending on the temperature. Ice (a) and ice (c) indicate amorphous ice (solid line) and crystalline ice (dashed line), respectively. Optical constants n of ice (c) and k of ice (c) in 0.1 µm to 62 µm show the same regardless of the temperature. However, k of ice (c) at ∼ 62 µm to 1000 µm … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Optical constants n and k, i.e., the real and imaginary part of the refractive index, of icy-astrosilicate aggregate depending on the fractional ratio of ice Fice. Ice (a), ice (c), and astrosil indicate amorphous ice (solid line), crystalline ice (dashed line), and astrosilicate, respectively. 10 1 10 0 10 1 10 2 10 3 wavelength [ m] 10 16 10 14 10 12 10 10 10 8 10 6 10 4 C s c a [ m 2 ] a = 0.1 m a = 1 m a = 10 m … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Assumed scattering and absorption cross sections (Csca and Cabs, respectively) of amorphous ice (solid lines) and crystalline ice (dashed lines) for different grain sizes. The individual grain size is indicated in each plot. For reference to the underlying complex refractive indices, resulting from laboratory measurements, see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (14 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Assumed scattering and absorption cross sections (Csca and Cabs, respectively) of ice-astrosilicate aggregates depends on the fractional ratio of ice Fice for different grain sizes. Ice (a), ice (c), and astrosil indicate amorphous ice (solid line), crystalline ice (da…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Effect of ice porosity on the resulting SED. P indicates the poros￾ity of ice grains. The dashed yellow line represents the photospheric emission of the central star. The solid and dashed lines indicate amor￾phous ice and crystalline ice, respectively. corresponding fe…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Effect of ice destruction mechanisms on the resulting SED. UV photosputtering and mutual collisions are considered in addition to ice sublimation. The dashed yellow line represents the photospheric emis￾sion of the central star. The solid and dashed lines indicate amor…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Effect of the ice destruction mechanism (left) and porosity (right) on the wavelength-dependent polarization degree at near-IR to mid-IR wavelengths. Ice (a) and ice (c) indicate amorphous (solid line) and crystalline ice (dashed line) with Fice = 1, respectively. lowe…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Effect of the fractional ratio of ice Fice on the resulting SED. The dashed yellow line represents the photospheric emission of the central star. Ice (a), ice (c), and astrosil indicate amorphous ice (solid line), crystalline ice (dashed line), and astrosilicate, respe…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Effect of the fractional ratio of ice Fice on the wavelength￾dependent polarization degree at near-IR to mid-IR wavelengths. Ice (a), ice (c), and astrosil indicate amorphous ice (solid line), crystalline ice (dashed line), and astrosilicate, respectively. 10 0 10 1 10…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Effect of the shape of dust aggregates on the resulting SED. Inclusion-matrix particles and core-mantle particles with spherical shape, inclusion-matrix particles with platelet shapes, and porous ice, with the same fractional ratio of ice (Fice = 0.5) are considered. …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Effect of the ice destruction mechanisms on the radial surface brightness profile at λobs = 2.2 µm, 3.5 µm, 10 µm, 44 µm, and 1000 µm. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 ["] 10 6 10 5 10 4 10 3 10 2 10 1 10 0 10 1 10 2 S u r fa c e b r i g h t n e s s [J y / a r c s e c 2 ] obs = 2.2 m Ic…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Effect of the fractional ratio of ice Fice on the radial surface brightness profile at λobs = 2.2 µm, 3.5 µm, 10 µm, 44 µm, and 1000 µm. resolved disks considering different shapes of dust aggregates, that is, inclusion-matrix particles and core-mantle particles with …
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Effect of the shape of aggregates (with same Fice = 0.5) on the radial surface brightness profile at λobs = 2.2 µm, 3.5 µm, 10 µm, 44 µm, and 1000 µm [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Prediction of the location of the ice survival line for grains of blowout size in the considered β Pic-like debris disk system. We show the dependence on the chemical component, shape, and physical state (amorphous vs. crystalline) of the icy dust aggregates. affects …
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Radial cut of spectral index α 550µm 2mm maps for models using the different fractional ratio of ice Fice (0 to 1). Ice (a) and astrosil indicate amorphous ice and astrosilicate, respectively. 1 and 2). In addition, the dependence on the particle phase is particularly…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Ratio between the surface brightness (SB) of debris disks assuming different mechanisms of ice destruction, chemical components, and shapes of icy-astrosilicate mixture at 2.8 µm (i.e., outside of the 3 µm ice feature) and 3.2 µm (i.e., inside of the 3 µm ice feature)…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Ratio between the surface brightness (SB) of debris disks assuming different mechanisms of ice destruction, chemical components, and shapes of icy-astrosilicate mixture at 35 µm (i.e., outside of the 44 µm ice feature) and 44 µm. The solid and dashed line indicate amo…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

90 extracted references · 72 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2013, A&A, 12

    Aikawa, Y ., Kamuro, D., Sakon, I., et al. 2013, A&A, 12

    2013

  2. [2]

    1989, ApJ, 337, 494

    Artymowicz, P., Burrows, C., & Paresce, F. 1989, ApJ, 337, 494

    1989

  3. [3]

    & Clampin, M

    Artymowicz, P. & Clampin, M. 1997, ApJ, 490, 863

    1997

  4. [4]

    M., Bruderer, S., Muzerolle, J., & Meyer, M

    Banzatti, A., Pontoppidan, K. M., Bruderer, S., Muzerolle, J., & Meyer, M. R. 2015, ApJ, 798, 16

    2015

  5. [5]

    2011, A&A, 526, A85

    Beck, P., Quirico, E., Sevestre, D., et al. 2011, A&A, 526, A85

    2011

  6. [6]

    & Whalley, J

    Bertie, E. & Whalley, J. E. 1967, Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, 25, 161

    1967

  7. [7]

    R., Absil, O., Agócs, T., et al

    Brandl, B. R., Absil, O., Agócs, T., et al. 2018, Proc. SPIE10702, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VII, 10702

    2018

  8. [8]

    H., Clark, R

    Brown, R. H., Clark, R. N., Buratti, B. J., et al. 2006, Science, 311, 1425

    2006

Show all 90 references
  1. [9]

    Brown, W. A. & Bolina, A. S. 2007, MNRAS, 374, 1006

    2007

  2. [10]

    L., Lanzerotti, L., & Johnson, R

    Brown, W. L., Lanzerotti, L., & Johnson, R. E. 1982, Science, 218, 525 Brunngräber, R., Wolf, S., Kirchschlager, F., & Ertel, S. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 4383

    1982

  3. [11]

    H., Fitzgerald, M

    Chen, C. H., Fitzgerald, M. P., & Smith, P. S. 2008, ApJ, 689, 539

    2008

  4. [12]

    P., Anderson, M

    Collings, M. P., Anderson, M. A., Chen, R., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 354, 1133

    2004

  5. [13]

    1997, A&A, 320, L29

    Crifo, F., Vidal-Madjar, A., Lallement, R., Ferlet, R., & Gerbaldi, M. 1997, A&A, 320, L29

    1997

  6. [14]

    B., Rajaram, B., Toon, O

    Curtis, D. B., Rajaram, B., Toon, O. B., & Tolbert, M. A. 2005, Appl. Opt., 44, 4102

    2005

  7. [15]

    R., et al

    Dartois, E., Cox, P., Roelfsema, P. R., et al. 1998, A&A, 338, L21

    1998

  8. [16]

    Dohnanyi, J. S. 1969, J. Geophys. Res., 74, 2531

    1969

  9. [17]

    2005, ApJL, 635

    Dominik, C., Ceccarelli, C., Hollenbach, D., & Kaufman, M. 2005, ApJL, 635

    2005

  10. [18]

    Draine, B. T. 2003, ApJ, 598, 1017

    2003

  11. [19]

    Eisner, J. A. 2007, Nature, 447

    2007

  12. [20]

    J., Collings, M

    Fraser, H. J., Collings, M. P., McCoustra, M. R. S., & Williams, D. A. 2001, MNRAS, 327, 1165

    2001

  13. [21]

    & Wagner, W

    Fraser, R. & Wagner, W. 2007, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 71, 36

    2007

  14. [22]

    2011, SPICA Yellow book, 3

    Goicoechea, J., Isaak, K., Roelfsema, P., Spinoglio, L., & Swinyard, B. 2011, SPICA Yellow book, 3

    2011

  15. [23]

    A., Ardila, D

    Golimowski, D. A., Ardila, D. R., Krist, J. E., et al. 2006, A&A, 131, 3109 Gor’kavyi, N. N., Ozernoy, L. M., Mather, J. C., & Taidakova, T. 1997, ApJ, 488, 268 Article number, page 12 of 17 M. Kim et al.: Feasibility of detecting water ice in debris disks

    2006

  16. [24]

    O., Corbally, C

    Gray, R. O., Corbally, C. J., Garrison, R. F., et al. 2006, The Astronomical Jour- nal, 132, 161

    2006

  17. [25]

    S., Holland, W

    Greaves, J. S., Holland, W. S., Wyatt, M. C., et al. 2005, ApJ, 619, L187

    2005

  18. [26]

    Greenberg, J. M. & Vandebult, C. E. P. M. 1984, In Royal Observatory Proc. of the Workshop on Lab. and Observational Infrared Spectra of Interstellar Dust, 70

    1984

  19. [27]

    2007, A&A, 475, 755 Häßner, D., Mutschke, H., Blum, J., Zeller, T., & Gundlach, B

    Grigorieva, A., Thébault, P., Artymowicz, P., & Brandeker, A. 2007, A&A, 475, 755 Häßner, D., Mutschke, H., Blum, J., Zeller, T., & Gundlach, B. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 5022

    2007

  20. [28]

    H., Allard, F., & Baron, E

    Hauschildt, P. H., Allard, F., & Baron, E. 1999, ApJ, 512, 337

    1999

  21. [29]

    1985, in Protostars and Planets II, ed

    Hayashi, C., Nakazawa, K., & Nakagawa, Y . 1985, in Protostars and Planets II, ed. D. C. Black & M. S. Matthews (Tucson: Univ. Arizona Press), 1100

    1985

  22. [30]

    & Salama, F

    Henning, T. & Salama, F. 1998, Science, 282, 2204

    1998

  23. [31]

    K., Fukagawa, M., et al

    Honda, M., Inoue, A. K., Fukagawa, M., et al. 2009, ApJL, 690, 120

    2009

  24. [32]

    2016, ApJ, 821, 6

    Honda, M., Kudo, T., Takatsuki, S., et al. 2016, ApJ, 821, 6

    2016

  25. [33]

    H., Whittet, D

    Hough, J. H., Whittet, D. C. B., Sato, S., et al. 1989, MNRAS, 241, 71

    1989

  26. [34]

    Hubickyj, O., Bodenheimer, P., & Lissauer, J. J. 2005, American Geophysical

    2005

  27. [35]

    Union, Fall Meeting 2005, abstract id.P42A

    2005

  28. [36]

    M., Sandford, S

    Hudgins, D. M., Sandford, S. A., Allamandola, L. J., & Tielens, A. G. G. M. 1993, ApJS, 86, 713

    1993

  29. [37]

    2017, Proc

    Jellema, W., Pastor, C., Naylor, D., et al. 2017, Proc. SPIE10563, 105631K, 10563, 8

    2017

  30. [38]

    Johnson, R. E. 1989, Icarus, 78, 206

    1989

  31. [39]

    1998, ApJ, 505, 897

    Jura, M., Malkan, M., White, R., et al. 1998, ApJ, 505, 897

    1998

  32. [40]

    & Jewitt, D

    Kalas, P. & Jewitt, D. 1995, AJ, 110, 794

    1995

  33. [41]

    2018, A&A, 617, A1

    Kamp, I., Scheepstra, A., Min, M., Klarmann, L., & Riviere-Marichalar, P. 2018, A&A, 617, A1

    2018

  34. [42]

    2003, Proceedings of the 219th sym- posium of the International Astronomical Union, IAUS 219, 80

    Kervella, P., Thévenin, F., Morel, P., et al. 2003, Proceedings of the 219th sym- posium of the International Astronomical Union, IAUS 219, 80

    2003

  35. [43]

    Kim, M., Wolf, S., Löhne, T., Kirchschlager, F., & Krivov, A. V . 2018, A&A, 618, 38

    2018

  36. [44]

    & Wolf, S

    Kirchschlager, F. & Wolf, S. 2013, A&A, 552, 54

    2013

  37. [45]

    2011, Earth Planets Space, 63, 1067

    Kobayashi, H., Kimura, H., Watanabe, S., Yamamoto, T., & Müller, S. 2011, Earth Planets Space, 63, 1067

    2011

  38. [46]

    2010, Earth Planets Space, 62, 57

    Kobayashi, H., Kimura, H., Yamamoto, S., Watanabe, S., & Yamamoto, T. 2010, Earth Planets Space, 62, 57

    2010

  39. [47]

    2008, Icarus, 195, 871

    Kobayashi, H., Watanabe, S., Kimura, H., & Yamamoto, T. 2008, Icarus, 195, 871

    2008

  40. [48]

    1978, Nature, 330, 550

    Kouchi, A. 1978, Nature, 330, 550

    1978

  41. [49]

    V ., & Trieloff, M

    Krause, M., Blum, J., Skorov, Y . V ., & Trieloff, M. 2011, Icarus, 214, 286

    2011

  42. [50]

    V ., Löhne, T., & Sremˇcev´c, M

    Krivov, A. V ., Löhne, T., & Sremˇcev´c, M. 2006, A&A, 455, 509

    2006

  43. [51]

    V ., Mann, I., & Krivova, N

    Krivov, A. V ., Mann, I., & Krivova, N. 2000, A&A, 362, 1127

    2000

  44. [52]

    V ., Müller, S., Löhne, T., & Mutschke, H

    Krivov, A. V ., Müller, S., Löhne, T., & Mutschke, H. 2008, ApJ, 687, 608

    2008

  45. [53]

    & Greenberg, J

    Li, A. & Greenberg, J. M. 1998, A&A, 331, 291 Löhne, T., Augereau, J.-C., Ertel, S., et al. 2012, ApJ, 537, A110 Löhne, T., Krivov, A. V ., Kirchschlager, F., Sende, J. A., & Wolf, S. 2017, A&A, 605, A7

    1998

  46. [54]

    Malfait, K., Waelkens, C., Bouwman, J., de Koter, A., & Waters, L. B. F. M. 1999, A&A, 345, 181 Maxwell Garnett, J. C. 1904, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London, Sect. A, 3, 385

    1999

  47. [55]

    K., Espaillat, C., Calvet, N., et al

    McClure, M. K., Espaillat, C., Calvet, N., et al. 2015, ApJ, 799, 162

    2015

  48. [56]

    K., Manoj, P., Calvet, N., et al

    McClure, M. K., Manoj, P., Calvet, N., et al. 2012, ApJ, 759, L10

    2012

  49. [57]

    1908, Ann

    Mie, G. 1908, Ann. Phys., 330, 377

    1908

  50. [58]

    P., Kama, M., & Dominik, C

    Min, M., Dullemond, C. P., Kama, M., & Dominik, C. 2011, Icarus, 212, 416

    2011

  51. [59]

    D., & Whalley, E

    Mishima, O., Klug, D. D., & Whalley, E. 1983, J. Chem. Phys., 78, 6399

    1983

  52. [60]

    Moerchen, M. M. 2008, Ph. D. thesis in University of Florida

    2008

  53. [61]

    J., et al

    Molinari, S., Ceccarelli, C., White, G. J., et al. 1999, ApJL, 521, L71

    1999

  54. [62]

    Y ., Bryden, G., Werner, M

    Morales, F. Y ., Bryden, G., Werner, M. W., & Stapelfeldt, K. R. 2016, ApJ, 831, 97

    2016

  55. [63]

    I., et al

    Morbidelli, A., Chambers, J., Lunine, J. I., et al. 2000, Meteorit. Planet. Sci., 35, 1309

    2000

  56. [64]

    W., Kenyon, S

    Nagasawa, M., Thommes, E. W., Kenyon, S. J., Bromley, B. C., & Lin, D. N. C. 2007, Protostars & Planets V , 639

    2007

  57. [65]

    K., Nakamoto, T., & Honda, M

    Oka, A., Inoue, A. K., Nakamoto, T., & Honda, M. 2012, ApJ, 747, 138

    2012

  58. [66]

    H., Forveille, T., et al

    Omont, A., Moseley, S. H., Forveille, T., et al. 1990, ApJ, 355, L27

    1990

  59. [67]

    1991, A&A, 251, 210

    Ossenkopf, V . 1991, A&A, 251, 210

    1991

  60. [68]

    O., & Artymowicz, P

    Pantin, E., Lagage, P. O., & Artymowicz, P. 1997, A&A, 327, 1123

    1997

  61. [69]

    & Krivov, A

    Pawellek, N. & Krivov, A. V . 2015, MNRAS, 454, 3207

    2015

  62. [70]

    D., Duchene, G., Graham, J

    Perrin, M. D., Duchene, G., Graham, J. R., et al. 2009, AIP Conference Proceed- ings

    2009

  63. [71]

    Plavchan, P., Jura, M., & Lipscy, S. J. 2005, ApJ, 631, 1161

    2005

  64. [72]

    M., Dullemond, C

    Pontoppidan, K. M., Dullemond, C. P., van Dishoeck, E. F., et al. 2005, ApJ, 622, 463

    2005

  65. [73]

    2019, ApJ, 880, 12

    Potapov, A., Jäger, C., & Henning, T. 2019, ApJ, 880, 12

    2019

  66. [74]

    Poynting, J. H. 1904, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series A, 525

    1904

  67. [75]

    N., Quinn, T

    Raymond, S. N., Quinn, T. R., & Lunine, J. I. 2004, Icarus, 168, 1

    2004

  68. [76]

    V ., Löhne, T., & Mohr, P

    Reinert, C., Mutschke, H., Krivov, A. V ., Löhne, T., & Mohr, P. 2015, ApJ, 573, 29

    2015

  69. [77]

    Robertson, H. P. 1937, MNRAS, 97, 423

    1937

  70. [78]

    G., & Hyland, A

    Robinson, G., Smith, R. G., & Hyland, A. R. 1992, MNRAS, 256, 437

    1992

  71. [79]

    R., Shibai, H., Armus, L., et al

    Roelfsema, P. R., Shibai, H., Armus, L., et al. 2018, Publications of the Astro- nomical Society of Australia, 35, 17

    2018

  72. [80]

    Schegerer, A. A. & Wolf, S. 2010, A&A, 517, A87

    2010

  73. [81]

    Smith, B. A. & Terrile, R. J. 1984, Science, 226, 1421

    1984

  74. [82]

    G., Robinson, G., Hyland, A

    Smith, R. G., Robinson, G., Hyland, A. R., & Carpenter, G. L. 1994, MNRAS, 271, 481

    1994

  75. [83]

    Stevenson, D. J. 1982, Planet. Space Sci., 30, 755

    1982

  76. [84]

    Strubbe, L. E. & Chiang, E. I. 2006, ApJ, 648, 652 STScI. 2017, Space Telescope Science Institute Article, JWST User Documen- tation, Baltimore, MD, Updated July 13, 2017

    2006

  77. [85]

    & Pearson, C

    Swinyard, B. & Pearson, C. 2017, Publications of The Korean Astronomical Society, 32, 337

    2017

  78. [86]

    T., Kobayashi, N., et al

    Terada, H., Tokunaga, A. T., Kobayashi, N., et al. 2007, ApJ, 667, 303 Thébault, P. & Augereau, J.-C. 2007, A&A, 472, 169 Thébault, P., Augereau, J.-C., & Beust, H. 2003, A&A, 408, 775

    2007

  79. [87]

    2006, in Planet Formation: Theory, Observa- tions, and Experiments, ed

    Thommes, E.W.and Duncan, M. 2006, in Planet Formation: Theory, Observa- tions, and Experiments, ed. H. Klahr and W. Brander (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)., 129

    2006

  80. [88]

    Warren, S. G. 1984, Appl. Opt., 23, 1206

    1984

  81. [89]

    W., & Tielens,

    Whittet, D., Schtte, . W., & Tielens, . A. 1996, A&A, 315, L357

    1996

  82. [90]

    ] 5 0 5 ∆ δ [

    Wolf, S. & V oshchinnikov, N. V . 2004, Computer Physics Communications, 162, 113 Article number, page 13 of 17 A&A proofs: manuscript no. Constraining_the_detectability_of_water_ice_in_debris_disks_2c Appendix A: We present simulated observations of spatially resolved disks c...

    2004

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.