Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

The Impact of External Radiation on the Inner Disk Chemistry of Planet Formation

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The inner few AU of a planet-forming disk stay chemically isolated until the external UV background reaches about 10^6 G0, below which temperatures and chemistry are nearly unchanged in the models.

desk verdict A useful first thermo-chemical framework for inner-disk chemistry under strong UV, but the headline detectability threshold (~1e6 G0) is not backed by actual line predictions—the paper's own text says effects should be detectable beyond 1e4 G0. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.06613 v1 pith:JOULWJXQ submitted 2025-08-08 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR

Jenny K. Calahan , Karin Öberg , Alice Booth This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR
keywords protoplanetarydisksexternalUVirradiationdiskchemistrythermo-chemicalmodelingwatersnowlineJWSTspectroscopyplanetformationastrochemistry
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

Most planet-forming disks form in clusters near massive stars, so an enhanced ultraviolet background is the rule rather than the exception. Using a 2D thermo-chemical disk model with a new accretion-heating term, this paper asks how strong that external UV field must be before the inner few AU — the region that builds terrestrial planets and feeds giant-planet cores — changes temperature and chemistry. The answer, in the fiducial K-star disk, is that exposures up to $10^4\,G_0$ leave the inner disk essentially unchanged, and that only at $\sim 10^6\,G_0$ does the disk atmosphere heat above 500 K, water and OH become more abundant in the IR-emitting layers, cold water vanish, and the 1–10 AU midplane chemistry reset toward atoms and simple molecules. If true, JWST spectra of most currently observed irradiated disks should look like isolated disks, while the most extreme proplyd-like environments should show a distinctive water/OH signature.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is DALI, a 2D thermo-chemical disk model that iteratively solves for dust temperature, radiation field, gas temperature, and chemical abundances. To this the paper adds a midplane accretion-heating term, combining irradiation and accretion temperatures as $T^4 = T_{\rm irr}^4 + T_{\rm acc}^4$, and an expanded hydrocarbon network (through C$_6$H$_6$) built from UMIST06 reactions so that C$_2$H$_2$ does not act as a carbon sink. The central diagnostic is the 'potentially observable' molecular column, computed by integrating abundances in temperature bins (hot >800 K, cool 300–800 K; water split into hot/warm/cold) above the dust layer that is optically thick at 10 µm. Ult

What would settle it

Observe a sample of disks with independently measured external UV backgrounds near $10^6\,G_0$ and look for the paper's predicted MIRI signatures: OH column and OH/H$_2$O ratio up by roughly an order of magnitude, warm water enhanced, and cold (200–400 K) water emission nearly absent. One such disk showing isolated-disk-like water and OH emission would falsify the threshold claim; likewise, a disk below $10^4\,G_0$ with measurable UV-driven chemical changes would falsify the claim that the inner disk is shielded up to that level.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is a threshold statement about external UV irradiation. In a prototypical K-star disk whose dust-to-gas structure is calibrated to Spitzer/JWST spectra, the inner few AU are well shielded: up to $10^4\,G_0$, the temperature structure and the IR-observable abundances of H$_2$O, OH, CO$_2$, C$_2$H$_2$, HCN, and CO remain close to the isolated-disk case. At $10^6\,G_0$, the atmosphere beyond 1 AU warms above 500 K; water and OH in the emitting layers increase while cold (200–400 K) water nearly vanishes; CO grows by roughly an order of magnitude; and between 1 and 10 AU near the midplane the chemistry resets, with water ice no longer the dominant oxygen carrier and ato

Load-bearing premise

The result rests on the calibrated dust/gas structure of the fiducial disk — a gas-to-dust ratio of 1000 with 99% of the dust mass in large grains, chosen to match Spitzer/JWST spectra — because that sets how far the external UV field penetrates; if real inner disks hold more small grains or less gas, UV would reach the midplane at smaller radii and the inner-AU shielding would break down.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Disks exposed to $\lesssim 10^4\,G_0$ should show JWST spectra nearly indistinguishable from isolated disks, so the current XUE-like observations are consistent with the model rather than anomalous.
  • At $\sim 10^6\,G_0$, JWST/MIRI should see enhanced warm water and OH, weakened cold water, and enhanced CO, while C$_2$H$_2$ and HCN stay roughly constant.
  • The water-ice-rich region shrinks to between roughly 1 and 10 AU in highly irradiated disks, shrinking the pebble reservoir and dampening the cold-finger effect that transports water inward.
  • Planets forming between 1 and 10 AU in a $10^6\,G_0$ environment accrete from an ice-depleted, atomic-rich, more gas-phase reservoir than planets forming in isolated disks.
  • The C$_2$H$_2$/H$_2$O column ratio is enhanced by UV only when the disk already has C/O > 1; at solar C/O it is unchanged, so a high observed ratio in an irradiated disk still requires carbon-rich gas.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the $10^6\,G_0$ threshold holds, surveys hunting for environmental imprints on planet-forming chemistry should concentrate on sources within roughly 0.05 pc of an O star; most cluster members at $10^4\,G_0$ are predicted to be chemically pristine.
  • In Section 4.3 the paper itself notes its thermo-chemical model is static and omits winds, envelopes, and time evolution; adding radial drift and meridional flows could carry the atomic-rich, ice-depleted gas from 1–10 AU into the inner AU, so the quoted isolation of the inner AU is a statement about static thermo-chemistry, not necessarily about what planets accrete.
  • The predicted blanketing of cold water by warm water is a testable geometric effect: high-spectral-resolution line profiles of the 200–400 K water component should show self-shielding and a compact emitting region in $10^6\,G_0$ disks, distinguishable from a genuine absence of cold water.
  • If UV exposure resets inherited chemistry, the elemental ratios locked into planetesimals in the 1–10 AU 'cometary' zone could serve as a fossil record of the cluster environment in which a planetary system formed.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. Calahan, Öberg, and Booth use the 2D thermo-chemical code DALI, augmented with an accretion-heating module, to model the inner 10 AU of a T Tauri disk exposed to external FUV backgrounds of 1, 10^4, and 10^6 G0. They study a fiducial disk, a low-mass disk, and a C/O = 2 disk. The main results are that the disk atmosphere beyond ~1 AU becomes hotter and more molecular-rich in H2O, OH, and atoms; the water snow surface is pushed inward and downward; the midplane chemistry between 1–10 AU shifts toward simple molecules and atoms; and the potentially observable IR-emitting column densities of oxygen carriers increase at high UV while hydrocarbons in the innermost AU are largely unaffected. The authors compare their predictions qualitatively with JWST observations of XUE disks and d203-506 and conclude that UV-driven changes should be detectable only in the most strongly irradiated disks (~10^6 G0).

Significance. The paper addresses a timely and observationally relevant question: how external UV radiation in clustered star-forming regions affects the inner-disk chemical reservoir available to planet formation. Its strengths include the use of a well-established code, the addition of an accretion-heating term, an explicit grid over disk mass and C/O, clearly defined observable column-density proxies, and a qualitative comparison with the first JWST samples of irradiated disks. The authors are also candid about many limitations, including the static model, the lack of winds and envelopes, and the fact that the column-density estimates are upper limits. If the predicted trends survive more detailed line-transfer modeling, the paper provides a useful interpretive framework. However, the central detectability claim is currently stronger than what the modeling supports, and the fiducial dust/gas calibration is a load-bearing assumption that is not tested.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract, §4 first paragraph, §5] The central detectability claim is internally inconsistent. The Abstract states that the UV impact 'should only be detectable in highly irradiated disks (~10^6 G0)', while the first paragraph of §4 says that 'the chemical composition of the atmosphere will be impacted strongly enough to detect beyond 10^4 G0', and §5 states that 'the bulk of the potentially-observable changes from the inner disk occur beyond 10^4 G0'. Figures 7–8 show changes relative to 1 G0 already at 10^4 G0 for several species. The wording needs to be reconciled: either distinguish 'changes in observable column-density proxies' from 'detectable with JWST', or pick a single threshold. As written, the headline claim is ambiguous and the abstract overstates the conclusion.
  2. [§3.2, §4.4] The 'detectable' conclusion is inferred from temperature-binned column-density proxies, not from line fluxes. The 'IR-emitting column densities' in §3.2 integrate model abundances above selected temperature thresholds and discard material beyond N_H2 = 10^24.2 cm^-2; §4.4 explicitly states these are 'an upper limit on what could be observed' because self-shielding, optical depth, and line transfer are not treated. Without synthetic spectra or line radiative transfer, the paper cannot determine at what G0 value JWST observations would actually change. This is load-bearing for the abstract's central claim. Please either compute line fluxes or soften the detectability claim to: 'the model predicts significant changes in observable column-density proxies only at ~10^6 G0.'
  3. [§2.1, Table A1, §4] The shielding of the inner disk depends on the adopted dust parameters: gas-to-dust = 1000 and 99% of dust mass in large grains (Table A1). These choices set the FUV penetration depth. The conclusion that the inner AU is well shielded even at 10^6 G0 is therefore not robust unless the sensitivity to these parameters is demonstrated. A real inner disk with more small grains or a lower gas-to-dust ratio could let the external field reach the midplane at smaller radii, lowering the threshold for the 'reset' chemistry and the detectability limit. Please add sensitivity runs for gas-to-dust ratio and grain-size distribution, or give an explicit quantitative uncertainty estimate.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§2.1] The text 'factor of 10-10 6' appears to be a formatting error for '10 to 10^6'; please correct.
  2. [Table A1] The header 'Mdust/Mgas 1000' is inconsistent with the text's gas-to-dust ratio of 1000 (which would be Mgas/Mdust = 1000, or Mdust/Mgas = 10^-3). Please fix the table entry.
  3. [Figure 4] The y-axis label is rendered as 'erg s 1 cm 3'; it should read 'erg s^{-1} cm^{-3}'.
  4. [§3.2, §4.4, §5] Several typos: 'photodissoication' (§3.2), 'irradaited' (§5), and 'evelopes' (§4.4). A light copyedit is recommended.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the model predictions are forward-model outputs with parameters calibrated to independent observations; the detectability threshold is under-supported (no line radiative transfer) but not definitionally forced.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a forward thermo-chemical model (DALI) with inputs chosen from the literature or calibrated to external observations. The disk physical structure (gas-to-dust = 1000, 99% large grains) is 'motivated by previous DALI models that reproduce Spitzer and JWST observations (Bosman et al. 2022a)' (Sec. 2.1), not fitted to the paper's own conclusions. The UV backgrounds are input parameters (1, 1e4, 1e6 G0). Temperature and abundances are then computed self-consistently; the 'potentially-observable' column densities in Sec. 3.2 are post-processing bins of model output, not quantities into which the conclusions were fed. The central claim that the inner AU is shielded from even 1e6 G0 is conservative under the chosen calibration: increasing gas-to-dust and large-grain fraction maximizes UV penetration, so the finding of isolation-like chemistry is not manufactured by the fitted inputs. The comparison to XUE and d203-506 (Sec. 4.4) is an external benchmark. The main caveat is a missing computation, not circularity: Sec. 4.4 states the abundance changes are 'an upper limit on what could be observed,' and no line radiative transfer is performed, so the abstract's sharp threshold 'should only be detectable in highly irradiated disks (~10^6 G0)' is not actually derived; the Discussion and Conclusion themselves say 'strongly enough to detect beyond 10^4 G0' and 'bulk of the potentially-observable changes ... occur beyond 10^4 G0.' This internal inconsistency weakens the headline claim but is a support gap, not a circular reduction. The self-citations to Bosman et al. (2022a,b) are used as model ingredients calibrated to independent spectra and to a known self-shielding effect; they do not carry the target result by themselves.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on a calibrated physical structure (gas-to-dust ratio and grain size distribution), a static treatment, an atomic-initial-chemistry assumption, and a truncated chemical network. No new physical entities are introduced. The free parameters listed are the main numbers chosen by hand or calibrated to other observations that materially affect the UV shielding and the definition of what is 'observable' in the models.

free parameters (7)
  • Accretion rate = 10^-8 M_sun/yr
    Chosen as a typical Class II accretion rate (Manara et al. 2023); used in the new accretion heating module and affects inner-disk midplane temperature.
  • Opacity for accretion heating = 0.5 cm^2/g
    Constant opacity adopted from Miyake & Nakagawa (1993); used in the vertical optical depth for T_acc.
  • PAH abundance = 6.0e-7/H
    Approximates ISM abundance; photoelectric heating from PAHs affects atmosphere temperature. Paper tests order-of-magnitude sensitivity (factor 3 in temperature).
  • Gas-to-dust ratio = 1000
    Motivated by previous DALI models that reproduce Spitzer/JWST spectra (Bosman et al. 2022a); a calibration rather than a measured value, and it controls UV penetration depth.
  • Large grain mass fraction = 99%
    Same calibration as gas-to-dust; determines the surface area available for UV absorption and heating, thus the depth of UV penetration into the disk.
  • Temperature bins for observable column densities = hot >800 K; cool 300-800 K; cold 200-400 K (H2O)
    Chosen from slab model results and retrieved temperatures (Arulanantham et al. 2025); defines the 'potentially-observable' column densities underlying the detectability claims.
  • IR optical depth cutoff = H2 column 10^24.2 cm^-2
    Where the disk becomes optically thick to 10 micron emission; molecules below this column are excluded from 'observable' abundances, affecting the detectability conclusions.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The disk is treated as static; time-dependent chemistry and dust/gas dynamics are ignored (Section 4.3: 'A critical limitation of this study is that the thermo-chemical model is static.').
    The claimed chemical reservoir available to forming planets assumes no radial drift, mixing, or time evolution; if dynamics are important, the inherited chemistry could differ.
  • domain assumption The external UV field is isotropic and only vertical column densities attenuate it; the disk is truncated at 30 AU with the argument that radiation parallel to the midplane is negligible (Section 4.1).
    This justifies the outer-disk truncation and neglect of radiation propagating through the outer disk; if grazing-angle or edge-on irradiation matters, the inner-disk field would differ.
  • domain assumption The chemistry is initialized in atomic form and the network is limited to hydrocarbon species up to C6H6 available in UMIST06 (Section 2.1, 3.3).
    The midplane 'reset' chemistry, especially the carbon sink (C2H4) and N carriers (HNO, NH3), depends on this network breadth; the authors explicitly say future work is required to confirm realism.
  • domain assumption No photoevaporative winds, envelopes, or shocks are modeled (Section 4.3).
    Winds can shield the disk from external UV and affect observables (Keyte & Haworth 2025); the paper argues the gravitational radius is beyond 10 AU, but this is an approximation that may not hold for all disk masses.
  • domain assumption The stellar spectrum is that of a typical K-star and the UV background is a scaled Draine field multiplied by 10-10^6 (Section 2.1).
    The results depend on the assumed input spectrum; different stellar types or spectral energy distributions could change the photochemistry and heating rates.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Impact of External Radiation on the Inner Disk Chemistry of Planet Formation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JOULWJXQ

@misc{pith2026250806613,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Impact of External Radiation on the Inner Disk Chemistry of Planet Formation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JOULWJXQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.06613}
}
read the original abstract

The vast majority of young stars hosting planet-forming disks exist within clustered environments, like the Orion Nebula, implying that seemingly `extreme' UV environments (10^4 G_0 and above) are not so atypical in the context of planet formation. Using thermo-chemical modeling, we explore how the temperature and chemistry within a protoplanetary disk around a T Tauri star is impacted by the surrounding UV environment. The disk becomes hotter due to heating by photodissociation of molecules, photoelectric heating, H_2, and atomic processes and as a result the area in which molecules exist in the ice-phase shrinks, being pushed both downward and inward. Beyond 1AU the chemistry changes most significantly in a UV-rich background; the atmosphere becomes more H2O, OH, and atomic-rich. Hydrocarbons, however, reside primarily well within 1AU of the disk, thus their abundance and distribution is not impacted by the UV field, up to a 10^6 G0. The products of photodissociation and photochemistry are formed deeper into the disk with increasing UV background field strength beyond 1AU, impacting the chemistry near the midplane. Effectively a `reset' chemistry takes place, with an enhancement of atoms, simple molecules, and molecules in the gas-phase. Planets that form in highly irradiated regions will be exposed to a different chemical reservoir in the gas and ice-phases than that in an isolated disk, and the impact from the UV background should only be detectable in highly irradiated disks (~10^6 G_0).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.06613 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The temperature structure of a protoplanetary disk without accretion heating in the midplane [left], and with a 10−8M⊙/yr accretion in the midplane [right]. the addition of accretion heating primarily impacts the midplane temperature, and any impact is kept within the warm molecular-rich zone (in this model, ∼z/r<0.2, see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The internal UV field [top row] and temperature [bottom row] within the first 10 AU of a disk that is 1% of the stellar mass (0.06 M⊙), exposed to an 1 G0, 104 G0, and 106 G0 background [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The primary heating mechanisms at 3 AU within a highly irradiated disk [top] and isolated disk [bottom]. PE stands for photoelectric effect. Most heating mechanisms within DALI are described in Bruderer et al. (2012); Brud￾erer (2013) and references therein, and the ph…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The different locations of the water snow surface across different UV irradiation environments. With increasing UV background, the snow surface is pushed deeper into the disk, and the secondary intersection with the midplane is moved inwards. 10 1 10 0 10 1 Radius [AU]…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The 2D abundance of gas-phase water within an isolated disk case[left] and an irradiated disk[right]. The optically thick dust surface is marked in black contour, while isothermal contours are marked in colored lines (200, 400, 800 K). dance once exposed to a UV field …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The evolution of key observable molecules with JWST over UV background in the fiducial model. One Earth’s Ocean is equivalent to 1046 molecules, and is calculated using integrated column densities within a given temperature range, above the dust optically thick surface…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The abundance of HCN in our fiducial (top) and C/O=2 (bottom) models. The black contour traces an abundance of 1×104 HCN/cm3 , inside of this contour con￾tains ≈99.99% of the HCN total abundance. The magenta contour traces the same HCN abundance, but in the 106G0 mode…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The ratio of the potentially-observable column density of C2H2 and H2O [top] and OH over H2O [bottom]. The observed ratios can be altered not only by initial C/O ratio of the gas, but also irradiation background (Isolated disk represented by a black curve, and a 106G0…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The primary carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen carriers near the midplane between 1-10 AU in our fiducial model and how they evolve over different UV backgrounds. A molecule starting with “J” denotes it is in the ice-phase. an increased temperature and UV field. More of the…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The abundances of CH4, atomic O, and atomic N in an isolated disk [top], and disk exposed to 106G0. Changes in abundance close to the midplane are particularly striking in some of the most simple C, N, and O carriers. The dashed line marks the portion of the disk that…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. JWST Edge-on Disk Ice (JEDIce): Vibrationally hot, rotationally cold H$_2$ in the outer disk of Oph 163131 non-thermally excited by UV and cosmic rays

    astro-ph.SR 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.5 of 10

    Outer-disk H2 in Oph 163131 is v-hot and J-cold from combined UV and cosmic-ray excitation plus collisions, implying an effective CR ionization rate of order 10^{-15} s^{-1}.

  2. The Impact of Radiation Environment on the Evolution and Fragmentation of Protostellar Discs

    astro-ph.SR 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    Stronger radiation environments produce more massive, hotter protostellar discs whose fragments are large and disruptive rather than planetary-mass.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Adams, F. C. 2010, ARA&A, 48, 47, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081309-130830

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081309-130830 2010

  2. [2]

    2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed

    Cieza, L. 2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed. H. Beuther, R. S. Klessen, C. P. Dullemond, & T. Henning, 475–496, doi: 10.2458/azu_uapress_9780816531240-ch021 16 T able A1. Model Variables Factor Value Mgas 0.06, 0.06 M⊙ Mdust/Mgas 1000 Msmalldust Mdust*0.01 Mlargedust Mdust*0.99 rc 100 AU hc [gas and small dust] 10 AU hc [large grains] 1 AU γ 1.0 ψ 1.05

    doi:10.2458/azu_uapress_9780816531240-ch021 2014

  3. [3]

    M., Huang, J., Pérez, L

    Andrews, S. M., Huang, J., Pérez, L. M., et al. 2018, ApJL, 869, L41, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf741

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aaf741 2018

  4. [4]

    P., Manara, C

    Ansdell, M., Williams, J. P., Manara, C. F., et al. 2017, AJ, 153, 240, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa69c0

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa69c0 2017

  5. [5]

    J., Williams, J

    Ansdell, M., Haworth, T. J., Williams, J. P., et al. 2020, AJ, 160, 248, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abb9af

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abb9af 2020

  6. [6]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.07562, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.07562 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T

    Arulanantham, N., Salyk, C., Pontoppidan, K., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.07562, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.07562 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sipőcz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.07562 2025

  7. [7]

    M., et al

    Banzatti, A., Salyk, C., Pontoppidan, K. M., et al. 2025, AJ, 169, 165, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ada962

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ada962 2025

  8. [8]

    A., Langer, W

    Bergin, E. A., Langer, W. D., & Goldsmith, P. F. 1995, ApJ, 441, 222, doi: 10.1086/175351

    work page doi:10.1086/175351 1995

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    B., Öberg, K

    Bergner, J. B., Öberg, K. I., Bergin, E. A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 876, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab141e Berné, O., Martin-Drumel, M.-A., Schroetter, I., et al. 2023, Nature, 621, 56, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06307-x

    2019 doi

  2. [10]

    2008, ARA&A, 46, 21, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145152

    Blum, J., & Wurm, G. 2008, ARA&A, 46, 21, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145152

    2008

  3. [11]

    D., & Bergin, E

    Bosman, A. D., & Bergin, E. A. 2021, ApJL, 918, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac1db1

    2021 doi

  4. [12]

    D., Bergin, E

    Bosman, A. D., Bergin, E. A., Calahan, J., & Duval, S. E. 2022a, ApJL, 930, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac66ce

    doi

  5. [13]

    D., Bergin, E

    Bosman, A. D., Bergin, E. A., Calahan, J. K., & Duval, S. E. 2022b, ApJL, 933, L40, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac7d9f

    doi

  6. [14]

    D., Walsh, C., & van Dishoeck, E

    Bosman, A. D., Walsh, C., & van Dishoeck, E. F. 2018, A&A, 618, A182, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833497

    2018 doi

  7. [15]

    D., Alarcón, F., Bergin, E

    Bosman, A. D., Alarcón, F., Bergin, E. A., et al. 2021, ApJS, 257, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac1435

    2021 doi

  8. [16]

    D., & Eisner, J

    Boyden, R. D., & Eisner, J. A. 2020, ApJ, 894, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab86b7 —. 2023, ApJ, 947, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acaf77

    2020 doi

  9. [17]

    2013, A&A, 559, A46, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321171

    Bruderer, S. 2013, A&A, 559, A46, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321171

    2013 doi

  10. [18]

    D., & Benz, A

    Bruderer, S., Doty, S. D., & Benz, A. O. 2009, ApJS, 183, 179, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/183/2/179

    2009 doi

  11. [19]

    F., Doty, S

    Bruderer, S., van Dishoeck, E. F., Doty, S. D., & Herczeg, G. J. 2012, A&A, 541, A91, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118218 Chaparro Molano, G., & Kamp, I. 2012, A&A, 547, A7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219943

    2012 doi

  12. [20]

    P., Anderson, M

    Collings, M. P., Anderson, M. A., Chen, R., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 354, 1133, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08272.x

    2004

  13. [21]

    J., Bergin, E

    Colmenares, M. J., Bergin, E. A., Salyk, C., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, 173, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8b4f Concha-Ramírez, F., Wilhelm, M. J. C., Portegies Zwart, S., van Terwisga, S. E., & Hacar, A. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 1782, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3669 D’Alessio, P., Cantö, J., Cal...

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    D., Schöier, F

    Doty, S. D., Schöier, F. L., & van Dishoeck, E. F. 2004, A&A, 418, 1021, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20034476

    2004 doi

  15. [23]

    Draine, B. T. 1978, ApJS, 36, 595, doi: 10.1086/190513 Drążkowska, J., & Alibert, Y. 2017, A&A, 608, A92, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731491 Drążkowska, J., Bitsch, B., Lambrechts, M., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 534, Protostars an...

    1978 doi arXiv

  16. [24]

    A., Arce, H

    Eisner, J. A., Arce, H. G., Ballering, N. P., et al. 2018, ApJ, 860, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac3e2 UV Backgrounds 17 Gárate, M., Pinilla, P., Haworth, T. J., & Facchini, S. 2024, A&A, 681, A84, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347850

    2018 doi

  17. [25]

    E., & Cleeves, L

    Gross, R. E., & Cleeves, L. I. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.06156, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.06156

    2025 doi arXiv

  18. [26]

    2015, ApJ, 798, 34, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/798/1/34

    Gundlach, B., & Blum, J. 2015, ApJ, 798, 34, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/798/1/34

    2015 doi

  19. [27]

    2011, Icarus, 214, 717, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2011.05.005

    Gundlach, B., Kilias, S., Beitz, E., & Blum, J. 2011, Icarus, 214, 717, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2011.05.005

    2011 doi

  20. [28]

    Habing, H. J. 1968, BAN, 19, 421

    1968

  21. [29]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  22. [30]

    Harsono, D., Bruderer, S., & van Dishoeck, E. F. 2015, A&A, 582, A41, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525966

    2015 doi

  23. [31]

    J., Facchini, S., Clarke, C

    Haworth, T. J., Facchini, S., Clarke, C. J., & Cleeves, L. I. 2017, MNRAS, 468, L108, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slx037

    2017 doi

  24. [32]

    2024, PASP, 136, 054302, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ad3455

    Henning, T., Kamp, I., Samland, M., et al. 2024, PASP, 136, 054302, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ad3455

    2024 doi

  25. [33]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  26. [34]

    2019, A&A, 629, A90, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935935

    Hyodo, R., Ida, S., & Charnoz, S. 2019, A&A, 629, A90, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935935

    2019 doi

  27. [35]

    Keyte, L., & Haworth, T. J. 2025, MNRAS, 537, 598, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf047

    2025 doi

  28. [36]

    J., & Lada, E

    Lada, C. J., & Lada, E. A. 2003, ARA&A, 41, 57, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.41.011802.094844

    2003 arXiv

  29. [37]

    2008, NewAR, 52, 21, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2008.04.002

    Lodato, G. 2008, NewAR, 52, 21, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2008.04.002

    2008 doi

  30. [38]

    Lynden-Bell, D., & Pringle, J. E. 1974, MNRAS, 168, 603, doi: 10.1093/mnras/168.3.603

    1974 doi

  31. [39]

    F., Ansdell, M., Rosotti, G

    Manara, C. F., Ansdell, M., Rosotti, G. P., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka, Y. Aikawa, T. Muto, K. Tomida, & M. Tamura, 539, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2203.09930

    2023 doi arXiv

  32. [40]

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

    Mathis, J. S., Rumpl, W., & Nordsieck, K. H. 1977, ApJ, 217, 425, doi: 10.1086/155591 Maucó, K., Manara, C. F., Ansdell, M., et al. 2023, A&A, 679, A82, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347627

    1977 doi

  33. [41]

    F., et al

    Miotello, A., Facchini, S., van Dishoeck, E. F., et al. 2019, A&A, 631, A69, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935441

    2019 doi

  34. [42]

    1993, Icarus, 106, 20, doi: 10.1006/icar.1993.1156

    Miyake, K., & Nakagawa, Y. 1993, Icarus, 106, 20, doi: 10.1006/icar.1993.1156

    1993

  35. [43]

    2016, ApJ, 827, 63, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/827/1/63 Öberg, K

    Musiolik, G., Teiser, J., Jankowski, T., & Wurm, G. 2016, ApJ, 827, 63, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/827/1/63 Öberg, K. I., Boogert, A. C. A., Pontoppidan, K. M., et al. 2008, ApJ, 678, 1032, doi: 10.1086/533432 Öberg, K. I., Furuya, K., Loomis, R., et al. 2015, ApJ, 810, 112, doi: ...

    2016 doi

  36. [44]

    2011, ApJ, 742, 65, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/742/2/65 Paneque-Carreño, T., Izquierdo, A

    Okuzumi, S., & Hirose, S. 2011, ApJ, 742, 65, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/742/2/65 Paneque-Carreño, T., Izquierdo, A. F., Teague, R., et al. 2024, A&A, 684, A174, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347757

    2011 doi

  37. [45]

    Parker, R. J. 2020, Royal Society Open Science, 7, 201271, doi: 10.1098/rsos.201271 Planet formation environments collaboration, Allen, M.,

    2020 doi

  38. [46]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.12255, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.12255

    Anania, R., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.12255, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.12255

    2025 doi arXiv

  39. [47]

    V., Ramírez-Tannus, M

    Portilla-Revelo, B., Getman, K. V., Ramírez-Tannus, M. C., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.00841, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.00841 Ramírez-Tannus, M. C., Bik, A., Cuijpers, L., et al. 2023, ApJL, 958, L30, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad03f8 Ramírez-Tannus, M. C., Bik, A., Get...

    2025 doi arXiv

  40. [48]

    E., Banzatti, A., Öberg, K

    Romero-Mirza, C. E., Banzatti, A., Öberg, K. I., et al. 2024, ApJ, 975, 78, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad769e

    2024 doi

  41. [49]

    Schoonenberg, D., & Ormel, C. W. 2017, A&A, 602, A21, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201630013

    2017 doi

  42. [50]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.22314

    Schroetter, I., Berné, O., Bron, E., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.22314. https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.22314

    2025 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Simon, A., Rajappan, M., & Öberg, K. I. 2023, ApJ, 955, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aceaf8 Stäuber, P., Doty, S. D., van Dishoeck, E. F., & Benz, A. O. 2005, A&A, 440, 949, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20052889

    2023 doi

  44. [52]

    F., et al

    Tabone, B., Bettoni, G., van Dishoeck, E. F., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 805, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-01965-3

    2023 doi

  45. [53]

    D., Gasman, D., et al

    Temmink, M., Sellek, A. D., Gasman, D., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.15237, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.15237 van Terwisga, S. E., & Hacar, A. 2023, A&A, 673, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346135 van Terwisga, S. E., Hacar, A., van Dishoeck, E. F., Oonk, R., & Portegie...

    2025 doi arXiv

  46. [54]

    J., & Nomura, H

    Walsh, C., Millar, T. J., & Nomura, H. 2013, ApJL, 766, L23, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/766/2/L23

    2013 doi

  47. [55]

    J., Clarke, C

    Winter, A. J., Clarke, C. J., Rosotti, G., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 2700, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty984

    2018 doi

  48. [56]

    J., & Haworth, T

    Winter, A. J., & Haworth, T. J. 2022, European Physical Journal Plus, 137, 1132, doi: 10.1140/epjp/s13360-022-03314-1 18

    2022 doi

  49. [57]

    Millar, T. J. 2007, A&A, 466, 1197, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20064981

    2007 doi

  50. [58]

    2025, A&A, 696, A99, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453441

    Zannese, M., Tabone, B., Habart, E., et al. 2025, A&A, 696, A99, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453441

    2025 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.