pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.00901 · v1 · pith:FELWWHHBnew · submitted 2026-05-30 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

The cosmic ray ionization rate from H3+ observations can be overestimated due to neglect of time-dependent chemistry

Ka Wai Ho , Munan Gong , Kedron Silsbee , Alexei Ivlev This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 18:01 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords cosmic ray ionization rateH3+ observationstime-dependent chemistryMHD simulationsdiffuse molecular cloudsinterstellar mediumturbulencesteady-state assumption
0
0 comments X

The pith

Time-dependent chemistry causes H3+ observations to overestimate the cosmic ray ionization rate by a factor of about three.

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

The paper shows that cosmic ray ionization rates derived from H3+ observations in diffuse molecular clouds have been overestimated because analyses assumed chemical steady state. In 3D simulations that include magnetohydrodynamics, driven turbulence, and full time-dependent chemistry, the abundances of both H2 and H3+ end up higher than steady-state calculations predict, especially in lower-density gas. When the standard observational fitting procedure is applied to these simulated data, it returns a cosmic ray ionization rate two to five times larger than the value actually driving the chemistry, with a typical factor of three. After correcting for the time dependence, the authors obtain an average rate of 2×10^{-17} s^{-1} per H2 that remains roughly constant across column densities from 2 to 6×10^{21} cm^{-2}. This matters because the ionization rate sets the ionization fraction, heating, and chemical pathways that control the evolution of the interstellar medium.

Core claim

By post-processing 3D MHD simulations with coupled chemistry and driven turbulence using steady-state abundance calculations for different CRIR values, the inferred CRIR is a factor of ∼2-5 higher than the true CRIR used in the time-dependent runs, with a median ratio of ≈3. Accounting for time-dependent chemistry yields an average CRIR per H2 of ζ_H2 = 2×10^{-17} s^{-1} from the H3+ observations, consistent with a constant value over the column density range N=(2-6)×10^{21} cm^{-2}. The bias is larger for stronger magnetic fields, weaker FUV fields, and stronger turbulence.

What carries the argument

Post-processing of time-dependent MHD-chemistry simulation outputs with steady-state H2 and H3+ abundance solvers to replicate observational CRIR inference.

If this is right

  • The true cosmic ray ionization rate in diffuse molecular clouds is lower than values inferred under steady-state assumptions.
  • The ionization rate shows no significant variation with column density between 2 and 6×10^{21} cm^{-2}.
  • The overestimation factor increases with stronger magnetic fields, weaker FUV radiation, and stronger turbulence.
  • Chemical and thermal models of the interstellar medium should adopt the lower corrected rate.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Similar steady-state biases may affect other molecular tracers used to infer ionization or density in turbulent regions.
  • Galaxy-scale models of cosmic-ray transport and heating could require downward revision if local rates are systematically lower.
  • Targeted observations in clouds with measured turbulence strengths could test the predicted dependence of the bias on magnetic field and radiation field strength.

Load-bearing premise

The post-processing procedure that fits steady-state abundances to the time-dependent simulation outputs accurately reproduces the analysis methods applied to real telescope observations of H3+ and H2.

What would settle it

Independent measurements of the cosmic ray ionization rate in the same diffuse clouds using gamma-ray emission or another tracer that does not rely on H3+ would settle the issue if they match the lower time-dependent value rather than the higher steady-state inferences.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.00901 by Alexei Ivlev, Ka Wai Ho, Kedron Silsbee, Munan Gong.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Column density maps comparing simulations with time-dependent and steady-state chemistry with the same CRIR. Top panels: total column density NH (left), molecular column 2NH2 in the time-dependent chemistry simulation (middle), and the steady-state 2NH2 from post￾processing (right). Bottom panels: mass-weighted mean density along the line of sight ⟨n⟩M (left), N(H+ 3 ) in the time-dependent chemistry simul… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: 2D histograms of chemical states in the fiducial simulation snapshot shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Comparison of the sight-line integrated column ratios NH + 3 /NH2 between time-dependent and steady-state chemistry so￾lutions for the fiducial simulation snapshot shown in Figures 1 and 2. The black diagonal line shows the one-to-one relation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Violin plot illustrating the distribution of ζinferred/ζtrue for different bins of column density N. The data come from the fiducial model.. The black vertical segment marks the median of each distribution. The over-estimation of the CRIR, ζinferred/ζtrue, is higher at lower N [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Histograms of the inferred-to-true CRIR ratio ζinferred/ζtrue for the simulation models varying physical and numerical parameters in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The cosmic ray ionization rate (CRIR) is a key parameter governing the physical, chemical and thermal evolution of the interstellar medium. The primary technique for measuring the CRIR in diffuse molecular clouds relies on observations of ${\rm H_3^+}$. Previous analyses of these observations have derived the CRIR under the assumption of steady-state chemistry. Here, we investigate the effect of time-dependent chemistry on the inferred CRIR from ${\rm H_3^+}$ observations. We perform 3D MHD simulations with coupled chemistry and driven turbulence. Following procedures similar to those used in the literature to analyze ${\rm H_3^+}$ observations, we conduct mock CRIR measurements by post-processing our simulations with different values of the CRIR to obtain steady-state abundances of ${\rm H_2}$ and ${\rm H_3^+}$. By comparing those with the abundances from time-dependent chemistry, we determine the best-fitting value of the CRIR. We find that the abundances of both ${\rm H_2}$ and ${\rm H_3^+}$ are higher in time-dependent chemistry simulations than in the steady-state case, especially in low-density regions. Furthermore, the inferred CRIR under the steady-state assumption is a factor of $\sim 2-5$ higher than the true CRIR, with a median value of $\zeta_\mathrm{inferred}/\zeta_\mathrm{true} \approx 3$. This bias increases with stronger magnetic fields, weaker FUV radiation fields, and stronger turbulence. Accounting for time-dependent chemistry, we report an average CRIR per ${\rm H_2}$ of $\zeta_{H_2} = 2\times 10^{-17}~\mathrm{s^{-1}}$ from the ${\rm H_3^+}$ observations. The CRIR is consistent with a constant value over the column density range of $N=(2-6)\times10^{21}~\mathrm{cm^{-2}}$.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript uses 3D MHD simulations with time-dependent chemistry and driven turbulence to test the effect of the steady-state assumption on CRIR inferences from H3+ observations. By post-processing the same density/temperature fields with varied steady-state CRIR values and comparing to the time-dependent abundances, the authors find that the inferred CRIR is overestimated by a factor of ~2-5 (median ~3). They report a revised average ζ_H2 = 2×10^{-17} s^{-1} that remains constant over N=(2-6)×10^{21} cm^{-2}.

Significance. If the bias factor is robust, the result would downward-revise CRIR values derived from existing H3+ data, with direct consequences for models of diffuse-cloud chemistry, heating rates, and ionization balance. The time-dependent simulation framework itself is a strength, as is the reported constancy of the corrected CRIR across the observed column-density range.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract / post-processing description] The post-processing procedure that generates the steady-state abundances (described as 'similar to those used in the literature') is load-bearing for the central factor-of-~3 bias claim. It is not shown that the fitting reproduces the exact observational steps (velocity-resolved spectra, excitation corrections, beam averaging, and the specific H3+ transitions) applied to real telescope data; without this match the reported bias does not directly apply to published H3+ measurements.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Methods] The chemical network size, included reactions, and any truncation criteria are not specified, limiting assessment of whether the time-dependent vs. steady-state difference is robust to network completeness.
  2. [Methods] Numerical resolution of the MHD grid and the exact procedure for fitting the steady-state CRIR (including any χ² definition or column-density weighting) are not reported, preventing reproduction of the median ratio ζ_inferred/ζ_true ≈ 3.
  3. [Results] The dependence of the bias on magnetic-field strength, FUV intensity, and turbulence driving is stated but not quantified with specific parameter values or figures showing the trend.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive review and for recognizing the significance of the time-dependent chemistry framework. We respond to the single major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / post-processing description] The post-processing procedure that generates the steady-state abundances (described as 'similar to those used in the literature') is load-bearing for the central factor-of-~3 bias claim. It is not shown that the fitting reproduces the exact observational steps (velocity-resolved spectra, excitation corrections, beam averaging, and the specific H3+ transitions) applied to real telescope data; without this match the reported bias does not directly apply to published H3+ measurements.

    Authors: We appreciate the referee drawing attention to the precise match between our post-processing and real observational pipelines. Our approach, described in Section 3, solves the steady-state chemical network for H2 and H3+ at the local density and temperature extracted from the MHD simulation, then identifies the CRIR value that best reproduces the time-dependent column densities; this mirrors the standard inference method used in the H3+ literature (e.g., comparing observed N(H3+)/N(H2) ratios to steady-state model grids). We do not perform full forward modeling of velocity-resolved spectra, excitation corrections, or beam averaging. The dominant bias we report originates in the chemical abundances themselves: time-dependent H3+ is systematically higher than the steady-state solution at the same n and T, especially at low densities. Observational processing steps would be applied identically to both the time-dependent and steady-state cases and therefore do not remove the relative offset. Nevertheless, to strengthen applicability, we have revised the methods section to explicitly list the assumptions of our mock procedure and added a paragraph in the discussion noting that full radiative-transfer mocks could be pursued in future work. The factor-of-~3 bias is therefore presented as the chemical contribution to the overestimate. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; simulation-based bias calibration is independent of observational inputs

full rationale

The derivation compares abundances from time-dependent 3D MHD+chemistry runs (with known input CRIR) against steady-state post-processing on the same density/temperature fields to quantify the inference bias. The true CRIR is an external simulation parameter; the inferred value is obtained by separate fitting. This forward-model comparison does not reduce to a self-definition or fitted input renamed as prediction. The final adjusted CRIR value applies the simulation-derived factor to literature observations, but the factor itself is not forced by construction from those observations. No load-bearing self-citation or ansatz smuggling is present in the provided text.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the fidelity of the MHD+chemistry simulations and the assumption that steady-state post-processing matches observational analysis. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (2)
  • CRIR values used in post-processing
    Multiple values tested to identify best-fit to time-dependent abundances
  • turbulence driving parameters
    Control strength of turbulence in the 3D simulations
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The chemical network accurately captures formation and destruction pathways for H2 and H3+ under diffuse-cloud conditions
    Invoked for both time-dependent runs and steady-state post-processing
  • domain assumption Post-processing with steady-state solver replicates the analysis pipeline used on real H3+ observations
    Central to the comparison that produces the overestimation factor

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5903 in / 1374 out tokens · 36763 ms · 2026-06-28T18:01:44.701379+00:00 · methodology

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

56 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    L., Linnartz, H., Cox, N

    Bacalla, X. L., Linnartz, H., Cox, N. L. J., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A31, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833039

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833039 2019

  2. [2]

    2013, in Planets, Stars and Stellar Systems: V olume 5: Galactic Structure and Stellar Populations, ed

    Beck, R., & Wielebinski, R. 2013, in Planets, Stars and Stellar Systems: V olume 5: Galactic Structure and Stellar Populations, ed. T. D. Oswalt & G. Gilmore (Dordrecht: Springer), 641–723, doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-5612-0 13

    work page doi:10.1007/978-94-007-5612-0 2013

  3. [3]

    2019, ApJ, 885, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab487b

    Bialy, S., Neufeld, D., Wolfire, M., Sternberg, A., & Burkhart, B. 2019, ApJ, 885, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab487b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab487b 2019

  4. [4]

    Nature Astronomy , keywords =

    Bialy, S., Chemke, A., Neufeld, D. A., et al. 2026, Nature Astronomy, 10, 540, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02771-9

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-025-02771-9 2026

  5. [5]

    R., Collier Cameron, A., et al

    Bisbas, T. G., Bell, T. A., Viti, S., Yates, J., & Barlow, M. J. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 2100, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.22077.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.22077.x 2012

  6. [6]

    H., & Dalgarno, A

    Black, J. H., & Dalgarno, A. 1977, ApJS, 34, 405, doi: 10.1086/190455

    work page doi:10.1086/190455 1977

  7. [7]

    A., Sofia, U

    Cardelli, J. A., Sofia, U. J., Savage, B. D., Keenan, F. P., & Dufton, P. L. 1994, ApJL, 420, L29, doi: 10.1086/187155

    work page doi:10.1086/187155 1994

  8. [8]

    M., Terzieva, R., & Herbst, E

    Caselli, P., Walmsley, C. M., Terzieva, R., & Herbst, E. 1998, ApJ, 499, 234, doi: 10.1086/305624

    work page doi:10.1086/305624 1998

  9. [9]

    , keywords =

    Crutcher, R. M., Wandelt, B., Heiles, C., Falgarone, E., & Troland, T. H. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 725, 466, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/725/1/466

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/725/1/466 2010

  10. [10]

    C., Stone, E

    Cummings, A. C., Stone, E. C., Heikkila, B. C., et al. 2016, ApJ, 831, 18, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/831/1/18

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/831/1/18 2016

  11. [11]

    Draine, B. T. 1978, ApJS, 36, 595, doi: 10.1086/190513

    work page doi:10.1086/190513 1978

  12. [12]

    T., & Bertoldi, F

    Draine, B. T., & Bertoldi, F. 1996, ApJ, 468, 269, doi: 10.1086/177689

    work page doi:10.1086/177689 1996

  13. [13]

    2024, A&A, 685, A82, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347628

    Edenhofer, G., Zucker, C., Frank, P., et al. 2024, A&A, 685, A82, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347628

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347628 2024

  14. [14]

    R., Weber, J., & Lambert, D

    Federman, S. R., Weber, J., & Lambert, D. L. 1996, ApJ, 463, 181, doi: 10.1086/177233

    work page doi:10.1086/177233 1996

  15. [15]

    E., & Langer, W

    Glassgold, A. E., & Langer, W. D. 1974a, ApJ, 193, 73, doi: 10.1086/153130 —. 1974b, ApJ, 193, 73, doi: 10.1086/153130

    work page doi:10.1086/153130

  16. [16]

    Glover, S. C. O., Federrath, C., Mac Low, M.-M., & Klessen, R. S. 2010, MNRAS, 404, 2, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15718.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15718.x 2010

  17. [17]

    Glover, S. C. O., & Mac Low, M.-M. 2007, ApJS, 169, 239, doi: 10.1086/512238

    work page doi:10.1086/512238 2007

  18. [18]

    2023, A&A, 669, A74, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243902

    Valdivia, V . 2023, A&A, 669, A74, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243902

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243902 2023

  19. [19]

    C., & Kim, C.-G

    Gong, M., Ostriker, E. C., & Kim, C.-G. 2018, ApJ, 858, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab9af

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aab9af 2018

  20. [20]

    C., Kim, C.-G., & Kim, J.-G

    Gong, M., Ostriker, E. C., Kim, C.-G., & Kim, J.-G. 2020, ApJ, 903, 142, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abbdab

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abbdab 2020

  21. [21]

    C., & Wolfire, M

    Gong, M., Ostriker, E. C., & Wolfire, M. G. 2017, ApJ, 843, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7561

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa7561 2017

  22. [22]

    W., Stone, J

    Gong, M., Ho, K. W., Stone, J. M., et al. 2023, ApJS, 268, 42, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aceaf9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aceaf9 2023

  23. [23]

    2019, ApJ, 887, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5362

    Green, G. M., Schlafly, E., Zucker, C., Speagle, J. S., & Finkbeiner, D. 2019, ApJ, 887, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5362

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab5362 2019

  24. [24]

    2020, A&A, 643, A17, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937387

    Guillet, V ., Hennebelle, P., Pineau des Forˆets, G., et al. 2020, A&A, 643, A17, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937387

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201937387 2020

  25. [25]

    I., & Herbst, E

    Hasegawa, T. I., & Herbst, E. 1993, MNRAS, 261, 83, doi: 10.1093/mnras/261.1.83

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/261.1.83 1993

  26. [26]

    Heiles, C., & Troland, T. H. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 624, 773, doi: 10.1086/428896

    work page doi:10.1086/428896 2005

  27. [27]

    W., Yuen, K

    Ho, K. W., Yuen, K. H., Flauger, R., & Kritsuk, A. G. 2025, PhRvD, 112, L101302, doi: 10.1103/vhhn-33jw

    work page doi:10.1103/vhhn-33jw 2025

  28. [28]

    Hu, C.-Y ., Sternberg, A., & van Dishoeck, E. F. 2021, ApJ, 920, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0dbd

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac0dbd 2021

  29. [29]

    R., Oka, T., & McCall, B

    Indriolo, N., Geballe, T. R., Oka, T., & McCall, B. J. 2007, ApJ, 671, 1736, doi: 10.1086/523036

    work page doi:10.1086/523036 2007

  30. [30]

    Indriolo, N., & McCall, B. J. 2012, ApJ, 745, 91, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/745/1/91 11

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/745/1/91 2012

  31. [31]

    A., Gerin, M., et al

    Indriolo, N., Neufeld, D. A., Gerin, M., et al. 2015, ApJ, 800, 40, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/800/1/40

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/800/1/40 2015

  32. [32]

    V ., Pellegrin, T., et al

    Indriolo, N., Ivlev, A. V ., Pellegrin, T., et al. 2026, ApJ, 997, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae21ba

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae21ba 2026

  33. [33]

    , keywords =

    Ivlev, A. V ., Silsbee, K., Padovani, M., & Galli, D. 2021, ApJ, 909, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abdc27

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abdc27 2021

  34. [34]

    R., Walch, S., Seifried, D., et al

    Joshi, P. R., Walch, S., Seifried, D., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 1735, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz052

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz052 2019

  35. [35]

    2023, PASA, 40, e046, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2023.43

    Koley, A. 2023, PASA, 40, e046, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2023.43

    work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2023.43 2023

  36. [36]

    G., Flauger, R., & Ustyugov, S

    Kritsuk, A. G., Flauger, R., & Ustyugov, S. D. 2018, PhRvL, 121, 021104, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.021104

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.121.021104 2018

  37. [37]

    L., Babusiaux, C., & Cox, N

    Lallement, R., Vergely, J. L., Babusiaux, C., & Cox, N. L. J. 2022, A&A, 661, A147, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142846

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142846 2022

  38. [38]

    K., & Botero, J

    Linder, F., Janev, R. K., & Botero, J. 1995, in Atomic and Molecular Processes in Fusion Edge Plasmas, ed. R. K. Janev, 397

    1995

  39. [39]

    J., Huneycutt, A

    McCall, B. J., Huneycutt, A. J., Saykally, R. J., et al. 2003, Nature, 422, 500, doi: 10.1038/nature01498

    work page doi:10.1038/nature01498 2003

  40. [40]

    C., Tassis, K., & Kunz, M

    Mouschovias, T. C., Tassis, K., & Kunz, M. W. 2006, ApJ, 646, 1043, doi: 10.1086/500125

    work page doi:10.1086/500125 2006

  41. [41]

    A., & Wolfire, M

    Neufeld, D. A., & Wolfire, M. G. 2017a, ApJ, 845, 163, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6d68 —. 2017b, ApJ, 845, 163, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6d68

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6d68

  42. [42]

    A., Welty, D

    Neufeld, D. A., Welty, D. E., Ivlev, A. V ., et al. 2024, ApJ, 973, 143, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7264

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad7264 2024

  43. [43]

    V ., Silsbee, K., et al

    Obolentseva, M., Ivlev, A. V ., Silsbee, K., et al. 2024, ApJ, 973, 142, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad71ce O’Donnell, E. J., & Watson, W. D. 1974, ApJ, 191, 89, doi: 10.1086/152944

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad71ce 2024

  44. [44]

    E., Sipil¨a, O., Segura-Cox, D

    Pineda, J. E., Sipil¨a, O., Segura-Cox, D. M., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, A162, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347997

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347997 2024

  45. [45]

    2021, A&A, 656, A109, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141776

    Redaelli, E., Sipil¨a, O., Padovani, M., et al. 2021, A&A, 656, A109, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141776

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141776 2021

  46. [46]

    D., & Sembach, K

    Savage, B. D., & Sembach, K. R. 1996, ARA&A, 34, 279, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.34.1.279

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.34.1.279 1996

  47. [47]

    N., & Herbst, E

    Shingledecker, C. N., & Herbst, E. 2018, Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics (Incorporating Faraday Transactions), 20, 5359, doi: 10.1039/C7CP05901A

    work page doi:10.1039/c7cp05901a 2018

  48. [48]

    V ., Sipil¨a, O., Caselli, P., & Zhao, B

    Silsbee, K., Ivlev, A. V ., Sipil¨a, O., Caselli, P., & Zhao, B. 2020, A&A, 641, A39, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038063

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038063 2020

  49. [49]

    J., Lauroesch, J

    Sofia, U. J., Lauroesch, J. T., Meyer, D. M., & Cartledge, S. I. B. 2004, ApJ, 605, 272, doi: 10.1086/382592

    work page doi:10.1086/382592 2004

  50. [50]

    E., Thorburn, J

    Sonnentrucker, P., Welty, D. E., Thorburn, J. A., & York, D. G. 2007, ApJS, 168, 58, doi: 10.1086/508687

    work page doi:10.1086/508687 2007

  51. [51]

    Spitzer, Jr., L., & Tomasko, M. G. 1968, ApJ, 152, 971, doi: 10.1086/149610

    work page doi:10.1086/149610 1968

  52. [52]

    C., Cummings, A

    Stone, E. C., Cummings, A. C., Heikkila, B. C., & Lal, N. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 1013, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0928-3

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0928-3 2019

  53. [53]

    M., Tomida, K., White, C

    Stone, J. M., Tomida, K., White, C. J., & Felker, K. G. 2020, ApJS, 249, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab929b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab929b 2020

  54. [54]

    I., Caselli, P., Dulieu, F., & Jim´enez-Serra, I

    Vasyunin, A. I., Caselli, P., Dulieu, F., & Jim´enez-Serra, I. 2017, ApJ, 842, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa72ec

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa72ec 2017

  55. [55]

    Wakelam, V ., Smith, I. W. M., Herbst, E., et al. 2010, SSRv, 156, 13, doi: 10.1007/s11214-010-9712-5

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-010-9712-5 2010

  56. [56]

    2016, MNRAS, 460, 2050, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1124

    Zhao, B., Caselli, P., Li, Z.-Y ., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 2050, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1124

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1124 2016