Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 45 references

Alkali phenoxides in comets

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that sodium and potassium release in comets inside 0.8 au is driven by carbon dioxide reacting with alkali phenoxides in organic dust, not by sputtering or thermal desorption.

desk verdict Strong observations, shaky chemistry: the phenoxide claim is undercut by the paper's own photoionization correction. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.02343 v1 pith:X6H34I3Q submitted 2025-06-03 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.IM

M. Fulle , P. Molaro , A. Rotundi , L. Tonietti , A. Aletti , L. Buzzi , P. Valisa This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.IM
keywords cometsalkaliphenoxidessodiumpotassiumlithiumcarbondioxidecometarydustheliocentricdistance
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 analyzes the first high-resolution spectra of comets observed inside 0.4 au from the Sun since the 1960s, detecting exceptionally strong sodium and potassium emission in comets C/2020 F3 NEOWISE and C/2024 G3 ATLAS and no lithium. The measured Na/K ratios, $31 \pm 5$ and $26 \pm 8$ versus the solar value of about 15, are higher than solar and grow with heliocentric distance. The authors argue that this excess and its trend are the signature of a specific surface chemistry: alkali phenoxides in the aromatic fraction of cometary dust react with carbon dioxide, releasing sodium atoms around $350$--$450$ K and potassium atoms around $470$--$490$ K. The explanation also accounts for the absence of lithium, whose phenoxide reaction is about $10^4$ times slower, and implies that carbon dioxide uptake by organic dust is a significant energy and mass sink in comets.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are alkali phenoxides, molecules in which a sodium, potassium, or lithium oxide group is attached to a benzene ring; they are assumed to reside in the aromatic fraction of cometary organic dust. The mechanism is a solid-gas reaction with carbon dioxide that forms salicylic acid and frees the alkali atom. Three quantitative ingredients carry the argument: laboratory reaction temperatures for sodium phenoxides ($350$--$450$ K) and potassium phenoxides ($470$--$490$ K), nucleus surface temperatures from a water-enriched blocks model that place these ranges at $r_h < 0.8$ au and $r_h < 0.5$ au, and reaction rates that put lithium phenoxides four orders of magnitude slower. These pieces convert observed emission thresholds and ratios into a thermochemical explanation.

What would settle it

Searching returned Stardust dust or the next comet sample for phenoxide molecules would settle it: if phenoxides are absent, the mechanism fails. A second decisive test is observing potassium emission in a small, active comet well outside 0.5 au, which would break the required temperature threshold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the alkali abundances seen in comets close to the Sun are not set simply by the composition of the dust but by a chemical filter. In the proposed picture, a fraction of sodium and potassium sits in phenoxides, molecules in which an alkali oxide group is bonded to a benzene ring, inside the aromatic organic component of cometary dust. Carbon dioxide released from the nucleus reacts with these phenoxides to form salicylic acid and eject free alkali atoms, with sodium phenoxides reacting at lower temperatures than potassium phenoxides. This reproduces the observed sodium emission threshold at heliocentric distance $r_h < 0.8$ au, the potassium threshold at $r_h < 0.5$ au, the Na/K ratios above the solar value, and the extreme lithium depletion in C/2020 F3. The same reaction is proposed as a previously unrecognized carbon dioxide sink in cometary activity, and it predicts a spatially resolved potassium tail for comets passing inside 0.5 au.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that a meaningful fraction of cometary sodium and potassium is actually present as phenoxides in the aromatic organic dust at the nucleus surface; no comet spectrum or returned sample has yet shown phenoxides, and the laboratory reaction was demonstrated only on pure compounds.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Comets passing inside 0.5 au should display a potassium tail resolved from the sodium tail; narrowband imaging of upcoming bright comets can test this directly.
  • The CO2-phenoxide reaction is a gas and energy sink that may keep CO2 pressures below a few megapascals and reconcile activity models with Rosetta CO2 measurements, even beyond 1 au.
  • Standard desorption mechanisms, including thermal, photon-stimulated, and solar-wind sputtering, cannot explain the measured Na/K excesses because they preserve cosmic abundances, so a chemical source is required.
  • The stringent Li upper limit (Na/Li $> 3.4 \times 10^4$ in C/2020 F3) implies that lithium in comets is either locked in silicates or reacts far more slowly than sodium, making cometary lithium a fresh probe of Galactic lithium production.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If phenoxide chemistry is real, any airless icy body with organic dust and internal CO2, not only comets, should show a similar alkali release pattern near perihelion; searching for NaI and KI in active asteroids could test the generality.
  • Laboratory studies on realistic cometary organic analogs, rather than pure phenoxides, could measure the actual fraction of alkali atoms held as phenoxides and turn the assumed abundance into a model parameter.
  • A confirmed phenoxide pathway would make cometary dust a delivery vehicle for salicylic-acid-type molecules, giving prebiotic chemistry a direct connection between comet volatiles and organic products.
  • The sodium trail of C/2024 G3, if it is made of sodium-emitting mininuclei, offers a way to probe the phenoxide reaction rate in situ by tracking how trail brightness decays with heliocentric distance.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents high-resolution optical spectra of comets C/2020 F3 NEOWISE and C/2024 G3 ATLAS obtained at heliocentric distances 0.36 and 0.15 au, respectively. NaI and KI emission lines are detected with exceptional intensity, while LiI is not detected, yielding NaI/KI ratios of 31±5 and 26±8 and a stringent Na/Li lower limit for C/2020 F3. The authors interpret these ratios as an excess over the solar Na/K=15.6 and propose that alkali phenoxides in the aromatic fraction of cometary dust react with CO2 at the nucleus surface to eject sodium and potassium atoms, with reaction temperatures that match the thresholds of potassium (rh<0.5 au) and sodium (rh<0.8 au) emission. They also analyze a SOHO-detected trail of C/2024 G3 as a sodium trail from sub-kilometer 'mininuclei' and predict a spatially resolved KI neutral tail for future comets. The paper concludes that phenoxide-CO2 chemistry provides a mass and energy sink for carbon dioxide in all comets.

Significance. The observations themselves are valuable: they are the closest high-resolution spectra of comets since C/1965 S1 Ikeya-Seki, provide the most stringent Li upper limit in a comet, and include a novel interpretation of a narrow optical trail as sodium emission. If the phenoxide mechanism is correct, it would establish a specific surface chemistry governing alkali release in comets, explain the different heliocentric thresholds for Na and K emission, provide a CO2 sink relevant to cometary activity models, and make a falsifiable prediction of a KI tail. However, the central quantitative claim rests on a ratio that the paper's own photoionization correction contradicts, and the chemical mechanism itself is introduced through an ad hoc assumption without independent observational or sample-based support. The strength of the paper therefore lies mainly in the new data and the proposed observable prediction, not in the demonstrated validity of the chemical scenario.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5, Tables 2-4, Conclusion 2] The central claim of a Na/K excess over the solar value is contradicted by the paper's own photoionization-correction model. The corrected ratios given in Tables 2 and 3 are Na/K_cor = 3±1 for C/2024 G3 and 8±1 for C/2020 F3, both below the adopted solar Na/K = 15.6, and the paper explicitly acknowledges this in Section 5 ('However, the Na/K_obs of C/2020 F3 and C/2024 G3 are corrected to Na/K_cor values inconsistent with the solar ratio'). If the correction is valid, then the observed excess that motivates the phenoxide mechanism is an artifact of uncorrected line intensities; if the correction is invalid, the earlier agreement of C/2011 L4 with the solar ratio (Na/K_cor = 18±5) is also suspect. The manuscript must resolve this inconsistency by either justifying the use of Na/K_obs as the abundance ratio (e.g., by showing the photoionization correction is not applicable to these observations) or by reframing the conclusions so that they rest on the corrected values rather than the raw excess.
  2. [Section 5, paragraph on phenoxide assumption] The assumption that alkali phenoxides are present in the aromatic fraction of cometary dust is unsupported by any direct evidence. The cited Stardust studies (Flynn et al. 2006; Sandford et al. 2006) did not search for phenoxides, as the paper itself notes, and the laboratory experiments (Kojcinovic et al. 2024) concern pure phenoxide compounds, not cometary-analog materials. Furthermore, the paper adjusts the potassium fraction in phenoxides to be 'lower than that of sodium by a factor of two to three, directly matching Na/K_obs', which is an ad hoc free parameter. As a result, the agreement between the reaction temperatures and the observed heliocentric thresholds (Table 5) is not an independent test of the hypothesis. The authors should either provide observational or experimental constraints that support the presence of phenoxides in cometary dust or clearly present the scenario as a speculative model whose predictions (e.g., salicylic-acid products, specific loss-rate scalings) remain to be tested.
  3. [Section 5, lithium discussion and Conclusion 4] The claim that lithium phenoxides react with CO2 at a rate 10^4 times slower than sodium phenoxides is based on an extrapolation from Staude & Hussain (1971), a polymer-chemistry study, and no rate constant for Li phenoxide + CO2 is given. Since the Li upper limit is presented as independent support for the phenoxide hypothesis, the argument is currently circular: the absence of LiI is explained by a reaction rate whose value is only assumed to match the observed upper limit. This point should be either supported with actual kinetic data for the relevant reaction or explicitly downgraded to a speculative possibility.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table 2] The row for K 7664.90 in Table 2 reports no intensity or upper limit; a value (or 'absorbed by telluric line') should be added for completeness.
  2. [Section 4] The statement 'The trail width implies ejection velocities ≤0.1 m s−1' would benefit from a statement of the assumed trail width in km and the measurement uncertainty used to derive this bound.
  3. [Figure 9] The left panels are described as LASCO C3 images in four passbands, but the panels are not individually labeled in the text; please indicate which passband corresponds to the 'orange passband' in which the trail is visible.
  4. [Abstract and Section 5] The abstract quotes 'solar Na/K = 15' while the text and Eq. (1) use 15.6 (Lodders 2003); the numbers should be made consistent.
  5. [Section 5, first paragraph] The acronym 'WEB' is used without expansion; it should be defined as 'water enriched blocks' at first use.
  6. [References] The reference 'King 2025' is a Sky & Telescope news note; if a peer-reviewed source for the destruction of C/2024 G3 is available, it should be cited instead.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The phenoxide model is tuned to fit the very Na/K ratios it claims to explain: the potassium fraction is set to a factor 2-3 below sodium to "directly match Na/K_obs", and the paper's own photoionization correction turns the claimed solar excess into a sub-solar ratio (8±1 and 3±1), so the central consistency is by construction.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 5, Discussion (paragraph on potassium abundance in phenoxides, following the assumption statement)]
    "Giotto and Rosetta, unlike Stardust, found a chondritic abundance of potassium, suggesting that the potassium fraction in phenoxides may be lower than that of sodium by a factor of two to three, directly matching Na/K_obs."

    The potassium fraction in phenoxides is not measured in comets or in the cited laboratory studies; it is a free parameter of the model. The paper sets it to a factor 2-3 lower than sodium precisely so that the predicted Na/K equals the observed Na/K_obs (31±5 and 26±8). It then uses that same observed excess as evidence for the phenoxide mechanism in Conclusion 2. The agreement is therefore obtained by construction: the parameter was selected to reproduce the target data point, and the subsequent "consistency" is a restatement of the fit, not an independent confirmation.

  2. self definitional [Abstract and Section 5 (assumption of alkali phenoxides); Conclusion 2]
    "To model the data, we assumed that alkali phenoxides are present in the aromatic fraction of organic dust at the nucleus surface where they react with carbon dioxide ejecting alkali atoms. ... Here we assume that a fraction of sodium and potassium is contained in the aromatic component of cometary dust (Sandford et al. 2006), namely in phenoxides (Kojcinovic et al. 2024), where sodium and potassium oxides are bonded to a benzene ring."

    The central conclusion ("The excess of the Na/K ratio ... are consistent with alkali phenoxides in the aromatic fraction of cometary dust reacting with CO2") is logically identical to the initial assumption. The paper admits that no dedicated search for phenoxides was performed on the Stardust samples, so the only stated basis for the assumption is the alkali anomaly it is meant to explain. Once the free potassium fraction is tuned (previous step), the model is guaranteed to be consistent with the input, so the claimed support for the phenoxide hypothesis reduces to the assumption itself rather than to new evidence.

full rationale

The paper reports new, high-quality NaI and KI detections and a stringent Li upper limit; these observations are not circular. The circularity lies in the interpretation. The observed Na/K ratio is turned into a "solar excess" by using the uncorrected Na/K_obs values despite the paper's own photoionization model correcting them to 8±1 (C/2020 F3) and 3±1 (C/2024 G3), both below the solar 15.6; the paper even acknowledges this in Section 5. The phenoxide model then explains this excess by assuming phenoxides are present and by adjusting the potassium fraction downward by a factor 2-3 to "directly match Na/K_obs". That adjustment makes the subsequent "consistency" of the model with the data a statement of the fitting condition, not a prediction. The rh-dependent thresholds (K at rh<0.5 au, Na at rh<0.8 au) are consistent with the independent laboratory temperature windows and WEB surface temperatures, so that part is not circular, although it relies on the author-team WEB model. The Li depletion is reconciled by citing an external Arrhenius factor of 10^4, which is a plausible non-circular check. Overall, the central claim that the Na/K excess supports phenoxide-CO2 chemistry is built on a parameter fit and an unsupported assumption that equals the conclusion, while the photoionization-corrected data contradict the premise. Score 6 reflects that one or more "consistencies" reduce to the model's own inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumed presence of alkali phenoxides in cometary dust, a quantity not measured or independently constrained. The K/Na fraction within phenoxides is explicitly tuned to match the observed ratios. The thermal connection uses the authors' own WEB model, and the CO2 pressure conditions are extrapolated from laboratory experiments. These are the main unverified inputs.

free parameters (3)
  • K/Na fraction in phenoxides = factor of 2-3 lower than solar
    Chosen to match the observed Na/K ratios: 'the potassium fraction in phenoxides may be lower than that of sodium by a factor of two to three, directly matching Na/K obs' (Section 5).
  • Phenoxide abundance in cometary dust = not quantified
    Assumed present without independent measurement; the paper states 'we assume that a fraction of sodium and potassium is contained in the aromatic component of cometary dust' (Section 5).
  • Reaction timescale for phenoxide conversion = 45 to 80 minutes
    Taken from WEB model ice draining times (Table 5); within these times 'about half of the phenoxides are converted' (Section 5), chosen to match the observed alkali loss rates.
assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper Alkali phenoxides are present in the aromatic fraction of cometary dust at the nucleus surface.
    Stated as an assumption in Section 5; no cometary phenoxide detection exists.
  • domain assumption The laboratory reaction of CO2 with phenoxides (Kojcinovic et al. 2024) operates under cometary nucleus conditions (T=350-490 K, pCO2 > 1 MPa).
    Section 5 maps WEB model surface temperatures to lab temperature thresholds and assumes the relevant CO2 pressure exists in the nucleus; the substrate and pressure conditions are extrapolations.
  • domain assumption The WEB model surface temperatures and thermal gradients are correct.
    Table 5 is taken from Fulle et al. 2020 and 2022, self-cited models, and is used to convert heliocentric distance to the temperatures required by the phenoxide reactions.
  • domain assumption The alkali tail photoionization model (Fulle et al. 2013) is valid for the rh range of these comets.
    Used in Eq. (1) and the (Na/x)_cor columns in Tables 2-4, though the paper notes it gives values inconsistent with the solar ratio for C/2020 F3 and C/2024 G3.
invented entities (2)
  • Alkali phenoxides in cometary dust
    purpose: Source of Na and K atoms via reaction with CO2; explains observed rh thresholds and Na/K ratios.
    No direct detection in comets; the paper cites Sandford et al. 2006 (Stardust organics) but notes that no specific phenoxide analysis was performed on those samples.
  • Mininuclei in the C/2024 G3 sodium trail
    purpose: Explain the observed sodium trail as debris from Oort cloud fragmentation by Galactic tides.
    Speculative scenario based on trail fitting and a Sky & Telescope news item (King 2025); no direct detection of mininuclei.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Alkali phenoxides in comets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/X6H34I3Q

@misc{pith2026250602343,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Alkali phenoxides in comets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/X6H34I3Q}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.02343}
}
read the original abstract

Potassium was first detected in spectra of the sungrazer comet Ikeya-Seki at the heliocentric distance rh = 0.15 au and, 48 years later, in comets PanSTARRS and ISON at rh = 0.46 au. The alkali tail photoionization model provides a Na/K ratio close to the solar value. No lithium was detected in any comet: the lower limit of the Na/Li ratio was almost one order of magnitude greater than the solar ratio. Here we searched for the emissions of the alkali NaI, KI, and LiI in Comets C/2020 F3 and C/2024 G3. High-resolution spectra of the comets were taken with the 0.84 m telescope at the Schiaparelli Observatory at rh = 0.36 and 0.15 au, the observations closest to the Sun since Ikeya-Seki. To model the data, we assumed that alkali phenoxides are present in the aromatic fraction of organic dust at the nucleus surface where they react with carbon dioxide ejecting alkali atoms. NaI and KI were detected in emission lines of exceptional intensity in both comets, with no evidence of LiI emission. The NaI/KI ratios were determined: 31 +/- 5 and 26 +/- 8, whereas solar Na/K = 15. This excess and its observed trend with the heliocentric distance are consistent with chemistry between CO2 and alkali phenoxides at the nucleus surface. The Li upper limit for comet C/2020 F3 is very stringent at Na/Li > 3.4 10^4, a factor of 34 greater than the solar value. This Li depletion is consistent with the reaction rate of lithium phenoxides, which is a factor of 10^4 slower than sodium phenoxides. The widespread chemistry of carbon dioxide with organic dust may provide a significant energy and mass sink of carbon dioxide in all comets also at rh > 1 au, reconciling recent models of cometary activity with Rosetta CO2 measurements. At rh < 0.5 au potassium was observed in all comets, so that we predict the formation of a KI tail spatially resolved from the NaI tail.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.02343 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Spectra of comet C/2020 F3 NEOWISE (upper panel) taken on 2020 July 10.1 UT and of comet C/2024 G3 ATLAS (lower panel) taken on 2025 January 15.7 UT (observation log in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Spectrum of comet C/2020 F3 in the NaI 5890 Å D line region. The flux has been normalized to 1.9 10−11 erg cm−2 s −1 Å −1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Spectrum of comet C/2020 F3 in the KI 7665 Å line region. The observed spectrum (blue line) has been corrected (black line) for the sky contamination using the twilight spectrum (red line). The flux has been normalized to the twilight continuum of 1.04 10−11 erg cm−2 s −1 Å −1 . was not detected. The exceptionally intense NaI λλ 5889.95 and λλ 5895.92 Å lines ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Spectrum of comet C/2020 F3 around the Li 6707 Å line. The observed spectrum (blue line) has been corrected (black line, shifted up by 0.05) for the sky contamination using the twilight spectrum (red line). The flux has been normalized to 1.4 10−11 erg cm−2 s −1 Å −1 …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Spectrum of comet C/2024 G3 in the NaI 5890 Å D line region. The observed spectrum (blue line) has been corrected (black line) for the sky contamination using the twilight spectrum (red line). The flux has been normalized to the twilight of 1.75 10−9 erg cm−2 s −1 Å −1…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Left panels: C/2024 G3 ATLAS observed by the SOHO spacecraft on 2025 Jan 13.446-13.487 UT in four LASCO C3 passbands (Sun at bottom, images 1.2 107 km wide). The horizontal trail is visible in the orange passband only (540-640 nm). Right panel: SOHO image taken on 2025…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: From left to right: C/2024 G3 ATLAS (ESA-NASA, SOHO) in the LASCO C3 clear passband observed on 2025 Jan 11.646, 13.204 and 14.746 UT, respectively. Vertical axis: Antisunward direction in 106 km units. Curved line: FeI tail. Dotted line: Comet orbit fitting the trail…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    K., Anstöter, C

    Ashworth, E. K., Anstöter, C. S., Verlet, J. R. R., & Bull, J. N. 2021, Phys. Chem Chem. Phys., 23, 5817

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    & Mugrauer, M

    Bischoff, R. & Mugrauer, M. 2021, Astron. Nach., 342, 833

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    2017, MNRAS, 469, S755

    Blum, J., Gundlach, B., Krause, M., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 469, S755

    2017

  4. [4]

    2021, A&A, 656, A160

    Cambianica, P., Cremonese, G., Munaretto, G., et al. 2021, A&A, 656, A160

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    2022, Nature Astr., 6, 546

    Ciarniello, M., Fulle, M., Raponi, A., et al. 2022, Nature Astr., 6, 546

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    2023, MNRAS, 523, S841

    Ciarniello, M., Fulle, M., Tosi, F., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, S841

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    R., Di Santi, M

    Combi, M. R., Di Santi, M. A., & Fink, U. 1997, Icarus, 130, 336

    work page 1997

  8. [8]

    Codina-Landaberry, S. J. 1997, ApJ, 485, 380

    work page 1997

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    2021, AJ, 162, 178

    Faggi, S., Lippi, M., Camarca, M., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 178

    2021

  2. [10]

    J., Bleuet, P., Borg, J., et al

    Flynn, G. J., Bleuet, P., Borg, J., et al. 2006, Science, 314, 1731

    2006

  3. [11]

    V ., Fulle, M., Quirico, E., & Ciarniello, M

    Fornasier, S., Hoang, H. V ., Fulle, M., Quirico, E., & Ciarniello, M. 2023, A&A, 672, A136

    2023

  4. [12]

    2004, in Comets II, ed

    Fulle, M. 2004, in Comets II, ed. M. C. Festou, H. U. Keller, & H. A. Weaver, 565–576

    2004

  5. [13]

    2020, MNRAS, 493, 4039

    Fulle, M., Blum, J., Rotundi, A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 4039

    2020

  6. [14]

    2022, MNRAS, 513, 5377

    Fulle, M., Lazzarin, M., La Forgia, F., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 5377

    2022

  7. [15]

    A., et al

    Fulle, M., Leblanc, F., Harrison, R. A., et al. 2007, ApJ, 661, L93

    2007

  8. [16]

    2013, ApJ, 771, L21

    Fulle, M., Molaro, P., Buzzi, L., & Valisa, P. 2013, ApJ, 771, L21

    2013

  9. [17]

    2022, Res

    Ghosh, R., Sil, M., Kumar M., S., et al. 2022, Res. Astron. Astroph., 22, 065021

    2022

  10. [18]

    E., Scott, R

    Hayatsu, R., Winans, R. E., Scott, R. G., et al. 1980, Science, 207, 1202

    1980

  11. [19]

    Hicks, M. D. & Fink, U. 1997, Icarus, 127, 307

    1997

  12. [20]

    & Jorda, L

    Ip, W.-H. & Jorda, L. 1998, ApJ, 496, L47

    1998

  13. [21]

    & Luu, J

    Jewitt, D. & Luu, J. 2025, AJ, in press

    2025

  14. [22]

    2025, in Astronomy & Observing News, ed

    King, B. 2025, in Astronomy & Observing News, ed. AAS, Sky & Telescope, 1 Koj˘cinovi´c, A., Likozar, B., & Grilc, M. 2024, Int. J. Mol. Sci., 25, 12923

    2025

  15. [23]

    2004, in Comets II, ed

    Lamy, P., Toth, I., Fernandez, Y ., & Weaver, H. 2004, in Comets II, ed. M. C

    2004

  16. [24]

    & Doressoundiram, A

    Leblanc, F. & Doressoundiram, A. 2011, Icarus, 211, 10

    2011

  17. [25]

    2008, A&A, 482, 293

    Leblanc, F., Fulle, M., López Ariste, A., et al. 2008, A&A, 482, 293

    2008

  18. [26]

    2018, Space Sci

    Levasseur-Regourd, A.-C., Agarwal, J., Cottin, H., et al. 2018, Space Sci. Rev., 214, 64

    2018

  19. [27]

    2015, Nature Comm., 6, 5933

    Liu, Q., Wu, L., Jackstell, R., & Beller, M. 2015, Nature Comm., 6, 5933

    2015

  20. [28]

    2003, ApJ, 591, 1220

    Lodders, K. 2003, ApJ, 591, 1220

    2003

  21. [29]

    S., Boakes, P

    Mannel, T., Bentley, M. S., Boakes, P. D., et al. 2019, A&A, 630, A26

    2019

  22. [30]

    2007, Russian Jour- nal of Physical Chemistry A, 81, 1392

    Markovic, S., Markovic, Z., Begovic, N., & Manojlovic, N. 2007, Russian Jour- nal of Physical Chemistry A, 81, 1392

    2007

  23. [31]

    McKay, A. J. & Cochran, A. L. 2014, in 45th Lunar and Planetary Science Con- ference, held 17-21 March, 2014 at The Woodlands, Texas, V ol. 1777, , 2303

    2014

  24. [32]

    S., Caffau, E., et al

    Molaro, P., Aguado, D. S., Caffau, E., et al. 2023, A&A, 679, A72

    2023

  25. [33]

    & Valisa, P

    Munari, U. & Valisa, P. 2014, Contributions of the Astronomical Observatory Skalnaté Pleso, 43, 174

    2014

  26. [34]

    2024, Phys

    Navas, S., Amsler, C., Gutsche, T., et al. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 110, 030001

    2024

  27. [35]

    Preston, G. W. 1967, ApJ, 147, 718

    1967

  28. [36]

    D., et al

    Preusker, F., Scholten, F., Matz, K. D., et al. 2017, A&A, 607, L1

    2017

  29. [37]

    1998, A&A, 334, L61

    Rauer, H., Arpigny, C., Manfroid, J., Cremonese, G., & Lemme, C. 1998, A&A, 334, L61

    1998

  30. [38]

    1995, Geophys

    Roos-Serote, M., Barucci, A., Crovisier, J., et al. 1995, Geophys. Res. Lett., 22, 1621

    1995

  31. [39]

    A., Alèon, J., Alexander, C

    Sandford, S. A., Alèon, J., Alexander, C. M. O. D., et al. 2006, Science, 314, 1720

    2006

  32. [40]

    & Hussain, A

    Staude, E. & Hussain, A. 1971, Polymer Journal, 2, 468

    1971

  33. [41]

    2003, ApJ, 585, L159

    Watanabe, J.-i., Kawakita, H., Furusho, R., & Fujii, M. 2003, ApJ, 585, L159

    2003

  34. [42]

    Wetherill, G. W. & ReVelle, D. O. 1982, in Comets, ed. L. L. Wilkening, 297

    1982

  35. [43]

    2015, A&A, 583, A22

    Wurz, P., Rubin, M., Altwegg, K., et al. 2015, A&A, 583, A22

    2015

  36. [44]

    2020, in AAS Division of Planetary Science meeting 52, V ol

    Ye, Q., Zhang, Q., Brewer, J., Knight, M., & Kelley, M. 2020, in AAS Division of Planetary Science meeting 52, V ol. 52, , 111.02

    2020

  37. [45]

    V ., Ivanovski, S

    Zakharov, V . V ., Ivanovski, S. L., Crifo, J. F., et al. 2018, Icarus, 312, 121 Article number, page 8 of 8

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.