Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 91 references

Chemical constraints on the dynamical evolution of the cold core L694

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Observations of the cold core L694 show that smoothed-particle-hydrodynamic collapse histories freeze out at least an order of magnitude too much CO, implying that either the model's CO freeze-out efficiency is too high or the dense core…

desk verdict Solid single-source astrochemistry; the dynamical-model CO discrepancy is plausible but overstated in the abstract, and it needs a sensitivity analysis before the quantitative claim is credible. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.00843 v1 pith:LTUWITHD submitted 2025-07-01 astro-ph.GA

A. Taillard , V. Wakelam , P. Gratier , E. Dartois , M. Chabot , J.A. Noble , L. Chu This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords coldcoreL694COdepletiongas-grainchemistryNautilusmodelpre-stellarmolecularabundancesdynamicalevolutionIRAM30m
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

The paper sets out to use observed molecular abundances as a chemical clock for the formation of the cold, starless core L694. Ten molecules mapped with the IRAM 30m telescope all deplete toward the dust continuum peak, and static gas-grain chemical models reproduce the observed abundances within a factor of about 10 when the densest gas is allowed only $10^4$ yr to form. The same chemistry driven by smoothed-particle-hydrodynamics collapse histories fails: at volume densities above $\sim 10^5$ cm$^{-3}$ it leaves at least an order of magnitude less CO in the gas than observed. A sympathetic reader would therefore take the paper as evidence that either the model's CO freeze-out efficiency is too high, or the real core's dense centre formed much faster than the simulated collapse trajectories.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is the Nautilus three-phase gas-grain chemical code, which follows gas-phase, surface, and mantle species with a rate-equation network (kida.uva.2024) and non-thermal desorption including cosmic-ray sputtering. It is run in two modes: static, with fixed density, temperature, and extinction taken from the observed source, and dynamic, driven by time-dependent physical conditions reconstructed from SPH collapse simulations. The comparison clock is CO: its gas-phase abundance is set mainly by the depletion timescale onto grains, so observed CO-versus-density curves translate directly into allowed formation times. Abundances for the observations come from an inverted non-LTE radiative transfer treatment of the IRAM 30m spectra.

What would settle it

Run the matched static and dynamical Nautilus models with the CO sticking coefficient lowered by a factor of 3 and compare to the observed CO-versus-density curve: if the static best times no longer fit while the dynamical ones do, the paper's central mismatch is an artifact of the sticking parameter, not of the collapse timescales.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

L694 is an infalling, chemically evolved pre-stellar core whose gas-phase CO abundance is preserved at high density to a degree that slow dynamical histories cannot explain. The observed CO depletion factor at the continuum peak is only about 2.2 relative to the canonical abundance, and the abundance profile shows depletion setting in with density; the static models pin the formation time of the densest part at roughly $10^4$ yr, while the dynamical SPH trajectories spend about $5\times 10^5$ yr crossing the $10^4$–$2\times 10^5$ cm$^{-3}$ range and consequently over-deplete CO by over an order of magnitude. The paper concludes that, assuming CO sticking is correctly captured in the Nautilus model, the simulated density histories are incompatible with the observed chemistry.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion rests on the chemical model's CO freeze-out efficiency being correct: if CO sticks to grains less efficiently, or is returned to the gas by an unmodeled desorption process, the slow simulated density histories would no longer over-deplete CO.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the static-model timescales are right, the dense centre of L694 formed in about $10^4$ yr, much faster than the $5\times 10^5$ yr the SPH histories spend in the freeze-out density range.
  • Cosmic-ray sputtering alone cannot rescue the dynamical models: even the higher CO2-rich sputtering yield leaves CO gas under-predicted at high density.
  • The method transfers: applying the same abundance-versus-density comparison to other cores would rank their dynamical states even when their physical parameters look nearly identical, as L694 and L429-C do.
  • Because the ice observations constrain the CH3OH gas-to-ice ratio, the low-sputtering static model reproduces the observed methanol ratio within a factor of 3, linking gas and ice chemistry to the same timescale.
  • A complete ice map of L694, expected from JWST observations of this source, would allow a direct test of where the missing CO resides and whether the gas-ice interface matches the static-model picture.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If CO sticking on cold grains is lower than Nautilus assumes, or non-thermal desorption is stronger, the apparent contradiction disappears; a dedicated laboratory sticking measurement around 10 K would settle which side of the mismatch is wrong.
  • The same diagnostic could be turned around: observed CO depletion profiles could serve as an empirical estimator of the local density-rising rate in cores, independent of kinematics.
  • A testable extension is to scan the SPH histories for subsets of particles with recent fast compression, such as filament collisions, and ask whether those sub-regions match the observed CO abundance while the mean trajectory does not.
  • Because the static models start from atomic gas, their inferred timescales are not strict maxima; if gas entered the dense phase already CO-poor, even shorter formation times would be allowed.
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 / 7 minor

Summary. The paper presents IRAM 30m observations of the cold core L694, derives gas-phase abundance maps for ten molecules with an inverted non-LTE radiative transfer code, and compares them with Nautilus gas-grain chemical models in both static and time-dependent (SPH) modes. The static models are used to infer a best chemical age per density bin from the observed CO, CS, and CH3OH abundances; the dynamical models are used to test whether the density histories from SPH simulations can reproduce the observed abundances. The authors find common depletion profiles toward the continuum peak, confirm the infalling nature of L694, and report that the dynamical model underpredicts the gas-phase CO abundance at high density by more than an order of magnitude, implying that the slow SPH density evolution overdepletes CO. They also compare L694 with the previously studied core L429-C.

Significance. If the main result is robust, it provides a meaningful chemical constraint on cold-core formation timescales: the SPH histories they use would be incompatible with the observed CO preservation unless CO freeze-out parameters are revised. The paper's strengths include new abundance maps, a multi-species depletion analysis, a two-method physical structure derivation, and the use of the public Nautilus code. It also explicitly states the key assumption on CO sticking. However, the quantitative 'at least one order of magnitude' claim has not been tested against variations in the CO sticking coefficient or non-thermal desorption efficiency, the dynamical comparison is shown for only one SPH core, and the abstract reverses the timescale direction relative to the body. These issues do not invalidate the observational analysis, but they affect the central dynamical conclusion as currently stated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Sect. 5.2 / Fig. 10] The abstract states that the dynamical model fails to reproduce the CO gas-phase abundances at high density, 'predicting an evolutionary timescale that is too short compared to static models.' The body says the opposite: the SPH density history in Fig. 10 takes about 5e5 yr to go from 1e4 to 2e5 cm^-3, while the static best time at high density is about 1e4 yr (Sect. 5.2). The dynamical timescale is therefore too long, not too short. This reversed statement must be corrected in the abstract and conclusions, since it inverts the main dynamical claim.
  2. [Sect. 4.3.2 and Sect. 5.2] The central quantitative claim — that the dynamical models underpredict the CO gas-phase abundance at high density by at least one order of magnitude — is conditional on the Nautilus CO freeze-out parameters, as the text acknowledges in Sect. 5.2 ('assuming that CO sticking is correctly reproduced in our model'). No sensitivity analysis over the CO sticking coefficient or the efficiency of non-thermal desorption (e.g., cosmic-ray-induced photodesorption) is provided. Because a lower sticking coefficient or a more efficient desorption channel would allow the slow SPH density histories to preserve CO, the factor-of-ten discrepancy is not demonstrated to be robust. The authors should either add such a sensitivity study or present the conclusion explicitly as conditional on the adopted freeze-out parameters, including in the abstract.
  3. [Sect. 4.3.1 and Sect. 4.3.2] The dynamical model comparison is illustrated with a single SPH core, and the assertion that 'the conclusions are consistent across all simulated cores' is not backed by any quantitative summary. If the 12 SPH cores span a range of density histories, the claimed incompatibility with the observed CO abundance depends on core selection. Please show the CO abundance-versus-density curves, or a statistical summary of the discrepancy, for all cores; at minimum, provide the distribution of the timescales needed to evolve from 1e4 to 2e5 cm^-3 across the simulated cores.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Table 1] The NH2D entry lists the same rest frequency (109782.1 MHz) and Einstein A coefficient as C18O; Appendix A uses 110153 MHz for NH2D. Please correct the table entry.
  2. [Table 2] The row labeled 'N2D' almost certainly refers to NH2D, the species discussed in the text; please fix the label.
  3. [Fig. 7 and Sect. 5.1] The Fig. 7 caption says 'brown circles correspond to L694', while the text refers to L694 in red; harmonize the color descriptions.
  4. [Sect. 4.2.2] The statement that the two sets of models (low/high sputtering yield) 'yield similar results' is qualified by Fig. 8, where the CH3OH gas-to-ice ratio differs by about a factor of 10 between the two yields; please add a qualifier to this sentence.
  5. [Sect. 3.1] The depletion factor is defined in two ways in the paper (Table 2 uses maximum-to-minimum abundance; Sect. 3.1 uses canonical-to-observed CO ratio). Introduce separate symbols or make both definitions explicit to avoid confusion.
  6. [Sect. 4.2.2 and Sect. 5.2] The static-model 'best times' are obtained by fitting the models to the observed abundances via the distance-of-disagreement, so they should be described as fitted constraints rather than as independent predictions of the core age; otherwise the comparison with the SPH timescales can appear circular. The dynamical comparison itself remains meaningful because the SPH histories are independent of the observed abundances.
  7. [Appendix E] The claim that abundances derived with method two are 'similar (within a factor of 3)' to method one is stated generally; consider showing a per-species comparison table or stating the exceptions explicitly, since some species (e.g., CS at low density) appear to deviate more strongly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the dynamical-model CO mismatch is an independent model-data comparison, static best-times are explicitly fitted constraints, and the CO-sticking caveat is disclosed in the body.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained against external observational benchmarks. Observed molecular abundances are derived from IRAM 30m spectra and independent physical-parameter maps (Herschel and background-star photometry) through ndRADEX radiative transfer; these are not constructed from the chemical models. The static Nautilus 'best times' are explicitly fitted quantities, selected by the distance of disagreement to the observed CO, CS, and CH3OH abundances, and the paper says so: 'This constraint was obtained by comparing the observed and modelled molecular abundances.' Those fitted timescales are therefore not presented as independent predictions, and no claim of predictive success rests on them alone. The central dynamical result — that the SPH-driven Nautilus models under-predict CO gas-phase abundance at high density by more than an order of magnitude — comes from density histories computed with the SPH simulations of Bonnell et al. (2013) and Ruaud et al. (2018), which are independent of the L694 observed abundances; those histories are then used to evolve the chemistry and the predicted CO is compared directly with the observed CO. This is a genuine model-data comparison, not a reduction to inputs. The main limitation is explicit and correctly placed in the discussion: 'assuming that CO sticking is correctly reproduced in our model,' and the abstract itself adds that 'a more detailed study on the parameter constraining the CO freeze-out could help to better constrain the timescale.' Self-citations to the authors' prior L429-C study, the Nautilus code, and the kinetic network provide methodology and context but do not force the CO under-prediction; no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported to forbid alternative explanations. The inconsistency between the abstract's 'too short' and the body's 'much longer' dynamical timescale is an internal wording problem, not a circular reduction. No step of the derivation is equivalent by definition to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper contributes observations and a model comparison but no new physical mechanism. Its central conclusion rests on the Nautilus network, atomic initial conditions, and CO freeze-out efficiency, all taken from prior work; the static best times are fitted to the observed abundances rather than predicted.

free parameters (5)
  • Static model best time per density bin = 1.3e5 yr (3.1e4 cm-3) to 1.0e4 yr (1.0e6 cm-3)
    Chosen for each density bin by minimizing the distance of disagreement between the Nautilus model and observed CO, CS, and CH3OH abundances (Sect. 4.2.2). This is a fit to the data; the resulting timescale is presented as a constraint but is not an independent prediction.
  • Cosmic-ray sputtering yield = H2O-rich and CO2-rich variants
    Two experimental yields are run (Dartois et al. 2018, 2020). The low (H2O-rich) yield reproduces the observed CH3OH gas-to-ice ratio within a factor of 3, so the comparison effectively selects the yield using L694 ice data (Sect. 4.2.2).
  • Sulphur elemental abundance = 8e-8
    Set to better reproduce S-bearing molecules, following low-metal abundances from Graedel et al. (1982) (Sect. 4.1).
  • Dust temperature offset = +1 K
    Added to the Hocuk et al. (2017) dust temperature parametrization, following Clement et al. (2023) (Sect. 4.1). Affects ice chemistry and CO freeze-out.
  • CO sticking coefficient
    Not reported or fitted; the paper's central conclusion is explicitly conditional on it being correctly reproduced in the model (Sect. 5.2).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Initial gas composition is atomic (all hydrogen in H2 after standard starting abundances).
    All Nautilus runs start from this standard initial condition (Sect. 5.2 states 'under the assumption that the gas is initially atomic'). If the gas were pre-enriched, the fitted timescales would change.
  • domain assumption The Nautilus gas-grain chemical network (kida.uva.2024) accurately represents cold core chemistry.
    The whole model-data comparison rests on this public code and reaction network (Sect. 4.1).
  • domain assumption Gas temperature equals the dust temperature derived with method one.
    Assumed in the radiative transfer analysis and static models (Sects. 2.3 and 4.1).
  • domain assumption CO sticking coefficient and binding energy are correctly reproduced in Nautilus.
    Explicitly flagged in Sect. 5.2 as the assumption on which the dynamical model failure depends.
  • domain assumption SPH density histories from Bonnell et al. (2013) are representative of L694's formation.
    The dynamical comparison assumes the simulated core formation scenario applies to this core (Sect. 4.3).
  • domain assumption The canonical 12CO abundance of 8.5e-5 (Frerking et al. 1982) is the right reference for depletion.
    Used to compute fCO = 2.23 in Sect. 3.1; the paper notes this choice carries uncertainty.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Chemical constraints on the dynamical evolution of the cold core L694." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LTUWITHD

@misc{pith2026250700843,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Chemical constraints on the dynamical evolution of the cold core L694},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LTUWITHD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.00843}
}
read the original abstract

In star-forming regions, molecular cloud history and dynamics set the trend in the chemical composition. Ice formation, in particular, is affected by the evolution of physical conditions, which can lead to different ice compositions within the same cloud. In cold cores with medium densities >1e4 cm-3, low temperatures <15 K, and low UV radiation <G0, most COMs are formed on dust grain surfaces and are released back into the gas phase through non-thermal mechanisms. Studying both gas- and solid-phases can help observers to add constraints on the chemical and dynamical evolution of cold cores. We present a study of the cold core L694, observed with the IRAM 30m telescope. Observed species include CO (and its isotopologues) and CH3OH. We applied an inverted non-LTE radiative transfer code in order to obtain gas-phase abundances by deriving the column densities of the detected species from the spectroscopic parameters of the targeted molecular transitions, and from physical parameters derived from archival observations. This allowed us to probe the molecular abundances as a function of density and visual extinction. In parallel, we ran chemical models (both static and dynamic) to constrain the evolution time of the core by directly comparing the observations with the model outputs. We then compared the compositions of the cold cores L429-C and L694. The gas-phase abundances in L694 all exhibit a common depletion profile (with high variability in the depletion factor), as the core is identified to be in a more advanced (infalling) state compared to L429-C. The physical parameters of the two cores are, however, very similar, leading to close evolutionary timescales in our static models. The dynamical model fails to reproduce the CO gas-phase abundances at high density, predicting an evolutionary timescale that is too short compared to static models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.00843 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left: H2 column density map (NH2 in cm−2 ) of L694, computed from Herschel maps at 250, 350, and 500 µm. The position of the continuum peak is represented by the blue cross. The red cross is at an off-position, used to show the different velocity profile in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Upper: C18O and CS spectra on the core position repre￾sented by the dark blue cross on the maps. Lower: Spectra of the same molecules at the position marked by the red cross in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Gas-phase abundances of observed molecules with respect to H [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Maps similar to those presented in Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left: Abundance as a function of hydrogen volume density n [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Best time from the static models, obtained using the dis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Methanol gas-to-ice ratio obtained for the two di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Mean abundances computed with the dynamical model (filled circles) as a function of density (see text). Standard deviation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Abundance of CO in the gas phase (black points) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

91 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    & Wakelam , V

    Ag \'u ndez , M. & Wakelam , V. 2013, Chem. Rev., 113, 8710

    2013

  2. [2]

    2002, A&A, 389, L6, arXiv: astro-ph/0205154

    Bacmann, A., Lefloch, B., Ceccarelli, C., et al. 2002, A&A, 389, L6, arXiv: astro-ph/0205154

    arXiv 2002

  3. [3]

    A., Alves , J., Huard , T., & Lada , C

    Bergin , E. A., Alves , J., Huard , T., & Lada , C. J. 2002, , 570, L101

    2002

  4. [4]

    Bergin , E. A. & Tafalla , M. 2007, , 45, 339

    2007

  5. [5]

    A., Dobbs , C

    Bonnell , I. A., Dobbs , C. L., & Smith , R. J. 2013, , 430, 1790

    2013

  6. [6]

    2015, Annu

    Boogert, A., Gerakines, P., & Whittet, D. 2015, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys., 53, 541, arXiv:1501.05317 [astro-ph]

    arXiv 2015

  7. [7]

    Boogert, A. C. A., Huard, T. L., Cook, A. M., et al. 2011, ApJ, 729, 92

    2011

  8. [8]

    2018, A&A, 610, A12

    Bron, E., Daudon, C., Pety, J., et al. 2018, A&A, 610, A12

    2018

Show all 91 references
  1. [9]

    J., Myers , P

    Caselli , P., Benson , P. J., Myers , P. C., & Tafalla , M. 2002 a , , 572, 238

    2002

  2. [10]

    E., Sipil \"a , O., et al

    Caselli , P., Pineda , J. E., Sipil \"a , O., et al. 2022, , 929, 13

    2022

  3. [11]

    2008, A&A, 492, 703

    Caselli, P., Vastel, C., Ceccarelli, C., et al. 2008, A&A, 492, 703

    2008

  4. [12]

    M., Zucconi , A., et al

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

    2002

  5. [13]

    Chu, L. E. U., Hodapp, K., & Boogert, A. 2020, ApJ, 904, 86

    2020

  6. [14]

    Chu, L. E. U. & Hodapp, K. W. 2021, arXiv:2106.08333 [astro-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  7. [15]

    J., Fedoseev , G., Ioppolo , S., van Dishoeck , E

    Chuang , K. J., Fedoseev , G., Ioppolo , S., van Dishoeck , E. F., & Linnartz , H. 2016, , 455, 1702

    2016

  8. [16]

    2023, , 675, A165

    Cl \'e ment , A., Taillard , A., Wakelam , V., et al. 2023, , 675, A165

    2023

  9. [17]

    M., et al

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

    2005

  10. [18]

    M., van Dishoeck , E

    Cuppen , H. M., van Dishoeck , E. F., Herbst , E., & Tielens , A. G. G. M. 2009, , 508, 275

    2009

  11. [19]

    M., Walsh, C., Lamberts, T., et al

    Cuppen, H. M., Walsh, C., Lamberts, T., et al. 2017, Space Sci. Rev., 212, 1

    2017

  12. [20]

    2020, A&A, 634, A103

    Dartois, E., Chabot, M., Bacmann, A., et al. 2020, A&A, 634, A103

    2020

  13. [21]

    I., et al

    Dartois, E., Chabot, M., Barkach, T. I., et al. 2018, A&A, 618, A173

    2018

  14. [22]

    I., et al

    Dartois, E., Chabot, M., Barkach, T. I., et al. 2019, A&A, 627, A55

    2019

  15. [23]

    J., Rawlings, J

    Evans II, N. J., Rawlings, J. M. C., Shirley, Y. L., & Mundy, L. G. 2001, ApJ, 557, 193

    2001

  16. [24]

    C., Bertin , M., Romanzin , C., et al

    Fayolle , E. C., Bertin , M., Romanzin , C., et al. 2011, , 739, L36

    2011

  17. [25]

    A., Langer, W

    Frerking, M. A., Langer, W. D., & Wilson, R. W. 1982, ApJ, 262, 590

    1982

  18. [26]

    W., Cuppen, H

    Fuchs, G. W., Cuppen, H. M., Ioppolo, S., et al. 2009, A&A, 505, 629

    2009

  19. [27]

    G., Caselli , P., et al

    Fuente , A., Navarro , D. G., Caselli , P., et al. 2019, , 624, A105

    2019

  20. [28]

    Galli , P. A. B., Loinard , L., Bouy , H., et al. 2019, , 630, A137

    2019

  21. [29]

    2019, Zenodo

    Ginsburg, A., Koch, E., Robitaille, T., et al. 2019, Zenodo

    2019

  22. [30]

    E., Langer , W

    Graedel , T. E., Langer , W. D., & Frerking , M. A. 1982, , 48, 321

    1982

  23. [31]

    Harvey , D. W. A., Wilner , D. J., Di Francesco , J., et al. 2002, , 123, 3325

    2002

  24. [32]

    Harvey, D. W. A., Wilner, D. J., Myers, P. C., & Tafalla, M. 2003, ApJ, 597, 424

    2003

  25. [33]

    I., Herbst , E., & Leung , C

    Hasegawa , T. I., Herbst , E., & Leung , C. M. 1992, , 82, 167

    1992

  26. [34]

    & Cuppen , H

    Herbst , E. & Cuppen , H. M. 2006, PNAS, 103, 12257

    2006

  27. [35]

    & van Dishoeck, E

    Herbst, E. & van Dishoeck, E. F. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 427

    2009

  28. [36]

    2017, A&A, 604, A58

    Hocuk, S., Szűcs, L., Caselli, P., et al. 2017, A&A, 604, A58

    2017

  29. [37]

    W., Tafalla, M., et al

    Kim, S., Lee, C. W., Tafalla, M., et al. 2022, ApJ, 940, 112, aAS

    2022

  30. [38]

    V., et al

    Kruczkiewicz , F., Dulieu , F., Ivlev , A. V., et al. 2024, , 686, A236

    2024

  31. [39]

    2003, Physics Today, 57, 53, publisher: American Institute of Physics

    Kruegel, E. 2003, Physics Today, 57, 53, publisher: American Institute of Physics

    2003

  32. [40]

    M., Schmiedeke , A., et al

    Launhardt , R., Stutz , A. M., Schmiedeke , A., et al. 2013, , 551, A98

    2013

  33. [41]

    W., Myers, P

    Lee, C. W., Myers, P. C., & Plume, R. 2004, ApJS, 153, 523

    2004

  34. [42]

    W., Myers, P

    Lee, C. W., Myers, P. C., & Tafalla, M. 2001, ApJS, 136, 703, arXiv: astro-ph/0105515

    2001 arXiv

  35. [43]

    H., Park , Y.-S., Sohn , J., Lee , C

    Lee , S. H., Park , Y.-S., Sohn , J., Lee , C. W., & Lee , H. M. 2007, , 660, 1326

    2007

  36. [44]

    2020, , 635, A188

    Lin , S.-J., Pagani , L., Lai , S.-P., Lef \`e vre , C., & Lique , F. 2020, , 635, A188

    2020

  37. [45]

    E., et al

    Lin , Y., Spezzano , S., Pineda , J. E., et al. 2023 a , , 680, A43

    2023

  38. [46]

    E., et al

    Lin , Y., Spezzano , S., Pineda , J. E., et al. 2023 b , , 680, A43

    2023

  39. [47]

    2016, , 592, A61

    Lippok , N., Launhardt , R., Henning , T., et al. 2016, , 592, A61

    2016

  40. [48]

    2013, , 560, A41

    Lippok , N., Launhardt , R., Semenov , D., et al. 2013, , 560, A41

    2013

  41. [49]

    2006, A&A, 451, 1125

    Lique, F., Spielfiedel, A., & Cernicharo, J. 2006, A&A, 451, 1125

    2006

  42. [50]

    2005, The Journal of Chemical Physics, 123, 134316

    Lique, F., Spielfiedel, A., Dubernet, M.-L., & Feautrier, N. 2005, The Journal of Chemical Physics, 123, 134316

    2005

  43. [51]

    2019, A&A, 626, A101

    Marchal, A., Miville-Deschênes, M.-A., Orieux, F., et al. 2019, A&A, 626, A101

    2019

  44. [52]

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

    Mathis , J. S., Rumpl , W., & Nordsieck , K. H. 1977, , 217, 425

    1977

  45. [53]

    K., Rocha, W

    McClure, M. K., Rocha, W. R. M., Pontoppidan, K. M., et al. 2023, Nat Astron, 7, 431, arXiv:2301.09140 [astro-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  46. [54]

    E., & Baratta , G

    Mennella , V., Palumbo , M. E., & Baratta , G. A. 2004, , 615, 1073

    2004

  47. [55]

    2024, , 688, A150

    Molpeceres , G., Furuya , K., & Aikawa , Y. 2024, , 688, A150

    2024

  48. [56]

    M., Jim \'e nez-Escobar , A., Mart \' n-Gago , J

    Mu \ n oz Caro , G. M., Jim \'e nez-Escobar , A., Mart \' n-Gago , J. \'A ., et al. 2010, , 522, A108

    2010

  49. [57]

    Müller, H. S. P., Thorwirth, S., Roth, D. A., & Winnewisser, G. 2001, A&A, 370, L49

    2001

  50. [58]

    A., Fraser, H

    Noble, J. A., Fraser, H. J., Pontoppidan, K. M., & Craigon, A. M. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 4753

    2017

  51. [59]

    & Olofsson, G

    Olofsson, S. & Olofsson, G. 2010, A&A, 522, A84, publisher: EDP Sciences

    2010

  52. [60]

    2002, , 575, 950

    Onishi , T., Mizuno , A., Kawamura , A., Tachihara , K., & Fukui , Y. 2002, , 575, 950

    2002

  53. [61]

    Perotti, G., Rocha, W. R. M., Jørgensen, J. K., et al. 2020, A&A, 643, A48

    2020

  54. [62]

    E., Harju , J., Caselli , P., et al

    Pineda , J. E., Harju , J., Caselli , P., et al. 2022, , 163, 294

    2022

  55. [63]

    & Schmitt, J

    Predehl, P. & Schmitt, J. H. M. M. 1995, A&A, 293, 889, aDS Bibcode: 1995A&A...293..889P

    1995

  56. [64]

    2018, A&A, 612, A83

    Qasim, D., Chuang, K.-J., Fedoseev, G., et al. 2018, A&A, 612, A83

    2018

  57. [65]

    & Flower, D

    Rabli, D. & Flower, D. R. 2010, MNRAS, 406, 95

    2010

  58. [66]

    2019, , 629, A15

    Redaelli , E., Bizzocchi , L., Caselli , P., et al. 2019, , 629, A15

    2019

  59. [67]

    Ruaud , M., Wakelam , V., Gratier , P., & Bonnell , I. A. 2018, , 611, A96

    2018

  60. [68]

    2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 459, 3756

    Ruaud, M., Wakelam, V., & Hersant, F. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 459, 3756

    2016

  61. [69]

    Ryter, C. E. 1996, Ap&SS, 236, 285, aDS Bibcode: 1996Ap&SS.236..285R

    1996

  62. [70]

    I., Keto, E., Bourke, T

    Sadavoy, S. I., Keto, E., Bourke, T. L., et al. 2018, ApJ, 852, 102

    2018

  63. [71]

    Sahnoun, E., Wiesenfeld, L., Hammami, K., & Jaidane, N. 2018, J. Phys. Chem. A. , 122, 3004

    2018

  64. [72]

    L., van der Tak, F

    Schöier, F. L., van der Tak, F. F. S., van Dishoeck, E. F., & Black, J. H. 2005, A&A, 432, 369

    2005

  65. [73]

    M., Hong , S

    Seo , Y. M., Hong , S. S., & Shirley , Y. L. 2013, , 769, 50

    2013

  66. [74]

    M., Hong, S

    Seo, Y. M., Hong, S. S., & Shirley, Y. L. 2013, ApJ, 769, 50, publisher: American Astronomical Society

    2013

  67. [75]

    Simons , M. A. J., Lamberts , T., & Cuppen , H. M. 2020, , 634, A52

    2020

  68. [76]

    2010, , 518, L87

    Stutz , A., Launhardt , R., Linz , H., et al. 2010, , 518, L87

    2010

  69. [77]

    C., et al

    Tafalla , M., Mardones , D., Myers , P. C., et al. 1998, , 504, 900

    1998

  70. [78]

    2023, , 670, A141

    Taillard , A., Wakelam , V., Gratier , P., et al. 2023, , 670, A141

    2023

  71. [79]

    2020, astropenguin/ndradex: Bug -fix release

    Taniguchi, A. 2020, astropenguin/ndradex: Bug -fix release

    2020

  72. [80]

    E., Richer , J

    Visser , A. E., Richer , J. S., & Chandler , C. J. 2002, , 124, 2756

    2002

  73. [81]

    2021, A&A, 652, A63

    Wakelam, V., Dartois, E., Chabot, M., et al. 2021, A&A, 652, A63

    2021

  74. [82]

    C., et al

    Wakelam , V., Gratier , P., Loison , J. C., et al. 2024, , 689, A63

    2024

  75. [83]

    2021, , 647, A172

    Wakelam , V., Gratier , P., Ruaud , M., et al. 2021, , 647, A172

    2021

  76. [84]

    2006, A&A, 451, 551

    Wakelam, V., Herbst, E., & Selsis, F. 2006, A&A, 451, 551

    2006

  77. [85]

    Wakelam , V., Ruaud , M., Gratier , P., & Bonnell , I. A. 2019, , 486, 4198

    2019

  78. [86]

    P., Lee, C

    Williams, J. P., Lee, C. W., & Myers, P. C. 2006, ApJ, 636, 952

    2006

  79. [87]

    Wilson, T. L. 1999, Reports on Progress in Physics, 62, 143

    1999

  80. [88]

    S., Charnley, S

    Wirström, E. S., Charnley, S. B., Cordiner, M. A., & Ceccarelli, C. 2016, ApJ, 830, 102

    2016

  81. [89]

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

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

    2010

  82. [90]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sent...

  83. [91]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

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