Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 53 references

Assessing the Impact of Varying HSO Cross Sections on Photochemical Models: Implications for the Spectral Characterization of Terrestrial Exoplanets

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-07-11 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read A better proxy for HSO photolysis boosts S8 haze signals in spectra of G- and K-star terrestrial planets with Archean-like air.

desk verdict Clean sensitivity study that re-ranks HSO and shows large S8/spectral changes for G/K hosts; the result is real inside the model but rests on an unvalidated HSO2 proxy. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.04275 v1 pith:XGIUIEBO submitted 2026-07-05 astro-ph.EP

Alexandre Branco , Clara Sousa-Silva , Wynter Broussard , Edward W. Schwieterman , Sukrit Ranjan , Vera Topcik , Olivier D. S. Demangeon , Pedro Machado This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords PlanetaryAtmospheresExoplanetMolecularDataRadiativeTransferHSOphotolysisS8aerosolsArchean-like
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

Photochemical models of temperate rocky exoplanets need accurate UV-Visible cross sections, yet HSO has none and is routinely treated as if it photolysed like HO2. This paper argues that HSO2 is a structurally better proxy, truncates its simulated spectrum at the energy needed to break the SO-H bond, and feeds the new prescription into an Archean-like N2-CO2-H2O atmosphere under elevated volcanic SO2. The result is higher HSO photolysis rates that feed sulphur polymerisation, producing tropospheric S8 abundances up to four orders of magnitude larger for G- and K-type hosts. Those aerosols strengthen optical scattering slopes and the 12 and 21 micrometre absorption features in transmission, emission and reflection spectra. Because S8 is a proposed indirect tracer of volcanic outgassing and a surface UV shield, the choice of HSO data can change whether those signatures appear strong enough to detect.

What carries the argument

The updated HSO cross-section prescription: UV-Visible absorption of HSO2 truncated at 466.1 nm (quantum limit of the SO-H channel) with a constant quantum yield of 1 assigned only to the HS+O photolysis path, used inside a one-dimensional photochemical network to drive sulphur polymerisation to S8.

What would settle it

Laboratory or high-accuracy ab initio UV-Visible cross sections of HSO itself (including branching between HS+O and SO+H) that, when inserted into the same photochemical model under the same SO2 fluxes, erase or reverse the order-of-magnitude S8 enhancement relative to HO2.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Replacing the default HO2-based HSO cross sections with a truncated HSO2 spectrum raises integrated HSO photolysis rates and can increase tropospheric S8 abundances by up to four orders of magnitude for planets orbiting G- and K-type stars under elevated SO2 fluxes, thereby enhancing aerosol scattering and absorption signatures across transmission, emission and reflection spectra; F- and M-type hosts remain largely insensitive.

Load-bearing premise

That HSO2 absorption, cut off at the SO-H bond energy and forced to yield only HS+O, is close enough to real HSO photolysis for the large S8 differences to be physically meaningful.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • S8 haze features at ~12 and ~21 micrometres may become detectable in emission for G-star planets under the new prescription, affecting LIFE-style planning.
  • Optical scattering slopes and geometric albedos rise for both G- and K-star cases, altering reflected-light observables relevant to future UV-optical-IR facilities.
  • S8 surface deposition rates can change by an order of magnitude, with direct consequences for modelled sulphur mass-independent fractionation records.
  • M-dwarf rocky planets remain robust to the choice of HSO data, so JWST interpretations of those atmospheres are not sensitive to this uncertainty.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the proxy is even approximately correct, HSO should be prioritised for laboratory or theoretical UV-Visible characterisation ahead of many other unmeasured radicals that do not feed S8 production.
  • Temperature-dependent HSO cross sections would be especially consequential for hot super-Earths with high sulphur outgassing, a regime the present cool-troposphere runs leave unexplored.
  • The same proxy logic (functional groups plus point-group symmetry) could be applied systematically to other unconstrained sulphur intermediates before full experimental campaigns.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper argues that HSO UV–Visible photolysis cross sections, currently unmeasured and routinely replaced by HO2 data, are a high-priority input for photochemical models of anoxic terrestrial atmospheres. Using functional-group and Cs point-group arguments, the authors adopt simulated HSO2 cross sections (Lu et al. 2021), truncate them at the 466.1 nm SO–H quantum limit, and assign a constant quantum yield of 1 solely for the HS+O channel. They then run the Atmos photochemical model for Archean-like N2–CO2–H2O atmospheres under elevated SO2 surface fluxes around FGK hosts and generate transmission, emission and reflection spectra with POSEIDON. Relative to the default HO2 prescription, the updated cross sections raise integrated HSO photolysis rates and increase tropospheric S8 abundances by up to four orders of magnitude for G- and K-type hosts, producing stronger haze scattering slopes and S8 absorption features near 12 and 21 µm. No sensitivity appears for F- or M-type hosts. The new prescription and scaling tests are released publicly.

Significance. If the proxy is even approximately faithful, the work supplies a concrete, falsifiable prioritization of HSO for laboratory or ab initio characterization and shows that an untested modelling assumption can alter predicted S8 haze signatures that future HWO/LIFE observations of G/K-star terrestrial planets may target. Strengths include a clean isolation of the cross-section input, tabulated boundary conditions, public data release, and explicit scaling tests that bound the effect of order-of-magnitude errors in the proxy magnitude. The result is therefore useful both as a sensitivity demonstration and as a guide for experimental effort, even while remaining conditional on the HSO2-to-HSO transferability.

major comments (2)
  1. Sections 2.1.1–2.1.3 and the abstract claim that the truncated HSO2 spectrum is a “more reliable representation of HSO photolysis than HO2.” The supporting evidence is limited to vibrational-frequency proximity and shared Cs symmetry; electronic spectra are not guaranteed to follow from these criteria. Because the central spectral claim (S8 enhancements of up to four orders of magnitude) rests entirely on this proxy, the manuscript should either (i) supply additional electronic-structure or literature support that the UV continuum of HSO2 is a reasonable stand-in for HSO, or (ii) rephrase the claim throughout as a pure sensitivity experiment whose absolute magnitude remains unvalidated until direct HSO data exist.
  2. Section 2.1.3 deliberately omits the second photolysis channel (SO+H, quantum limit 466.1 nm) and any long-wavelength opacity tail beyond that limit, while forcing QY=1 exclusively for HS+O. The paper notes that this choice isolates the cross-section effect, yet the same section acknowledges that wavelength-dependent branching is physically motivated. Because HS production is the direct driver of the reported S8 increase (net pathway in §3.2), a short test that redistributes quantum yield between the two channels (or simply reports the fractional contribution of wavelengths longward of the HO2 cut-off) is needed to show that the order-of-magnitude S8 jump is not an artefact of the single-channel assumption.
minor comments (5)
  1. Figure 1 caption and §2.4: the M-dwarf spectrum is shown but never used in the main figures; a one-sentence pointer to the (null) M-dwarf result already stated in §4 would avoid reader confusion.
  2. Table 1: the HSO2 reference is listed as F2019 but the bibliography entry is Fortenberry & Francisco 2021; align year and citation key.
  3. Throughout: “σ Böotis” / “σ Boötis” spelling is inconsistent; standardize.
  4. Appendix C pathways are useful but would be clearer if the competing rates (HSO recycling vs. photolysis) were quantified for the same G/K cases shown in Figure 3.
  5. Data availability: the Zenodo/GitHub links are welcome; please confirm that the exact wavelength grid and units used by Atmos are included so that the prescription is plug-and-play.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: external cross-section inputs are mapped through an independent photochemical model to abundances and spectra; no parameter is fitted to force the S8 enhancement.

full rationale

The paper’s central result is a sensitivity demonstration: two independent external UV–Visible cross-section data sets (HO2 from Sander et al. 2011 versus truncated HSO2 from Lu et al. 2021) are inserted into the same Atmos photochemical network and POSEIDON radiative-transfer calculation. The resulting differences in HSO photolysis rates, S8 aerosol abundances (up to four orders of magnitude), and transmission/emission/reflection spectra are therefore direct numerical consequences of the changed opacity input, not of any free parameter adjusted to reproduce a target observable. The choice of HSO2 as proxy is motivated by tabulated vibrational frequencies and Cs point-group symmetry (Table 1 and §2.1.1–2.1.2), not by a self-referential definition or uniqueness theorem. Truncation at the 466.1 nm SO–H quantum limit and the constant quantum-yield assumption of 1 for the HS+O channel are stated modelling choices that isolate the cross-section effect; they do not close a logical loop. Self-citations to the group’s earlier H2O/CO2 papers supply only background context and the fixed H2O/CO2 opacities used in all runs; they are not load-bearing for the HSO–S8 claim. No fitted input is re-labelled a prediction, no ansatz is smuggled via self-citation, and no known empirical pattern is merely renamed. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against its external inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a short list of modelling choices and one key chemical-proxy assumption. No new physical entities are invented; free parameters are the usual boundary-condition knobs of 1-D photochemical models. The load-bearing novelty is the claim that HSO2 is a better proxy than HO2, which is justified by vibrational frequencies and point-group symmetry but is not independently verified by HSO measurements.

free parameters (3)
  • SO2 surface flux = 6e10 (G) / 4.5e10 (K) cm-2 s-1 for main figures
    Varied by hand from 3e9 to 3e12 cm-2 s-1 (1–1000× modern Earth) to locate the peak-sensitivity regime; the spectral differences are largest near the chosen peak fluxes.
  • HSO photolysis quantum yield = 1.0
    Set to a constant 1 for the HS+O channel across the entire wavelength range of the new prescription, matching the default HO2 treatment but ignoring possible branching to SO+H.
  • surface temperature / relative humidity = 275 K, 70 %
    Fixed at 275 K and 70 % for all stellar types so that water-vapour (and therefore OH) differences do not mask the HSO effect.
assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper Molecules sharing functional groups and the same point-group symmetry (Cs) have sufficiently similar UV-Visible electronic spectra that HSO2 can stand in for HSO.
    Stated in §§2.1.1–2.1.2; the entire updated prescription rests on this untested transferability.
  • domain assumption Only the HS+O photolysis channel of HSO is active in the Atmos network and contributes to S8 formation.
    Explicitly adopted in §2.1.3 to keep the comparison clean with prior HO2-based runs.
  • domain assumption The Archean+haze template of Arney et al. (2016) with the listed biotic boundary conditions is an adequate representation of anoxic terrestrial atmospheres for the sensitivity test.
    Section 2.2 and Appendix A; all abundance and spectral differences are computed inside this fixed template.
  • ad hoc to paper Forbidden transitions beyond the 466.1 nm quantum limit can be ignored for the present sensitivity study.
    Stated in §2.1.3; the authors deliberately omit the cumulative-opacity effect that Broussard et al. found important for H2O.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Assessing the Impact of Varying HSO Cross Sections on Photochemical Models: Implications for the Spectral Characterization of Terrestrial Exoplanets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XGIUIEBO

@misc{pith2026260704275,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Assessing the Impact of Varying HSO Cross Sections on Photochemical Models: Implications for the Spectral Characterization of Terrestrial Exoplanets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XGIUIEBO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.04275}
}
read the original abstract

Characterization of exoplanet atmospheres requires a close interplay between observations, modelling and experimental data. The accuracy of input data used in atmospheric models is essential, as it impacts our interpretation of planetary spectra with retrieval codes. Molecular absorption cross sections in the Ultraviolet-Visible range are fundamental input parameters, determining chemical kinetics, particularly on temperate terrestrial planets. However, several atmospheric species remain poorly, or even entirely uncharacterised. This is the case for HSO, a radical with unconstrained photolysis cross sections, often approximated by hydroperoxyl (HO2). Sulphur chemistry can strongly influence the composition of rocky exoplanets, particularly in anoxic environments where volcanic SO2 -- the main source of HSO -- is more efficiently photolysed, and sulphur aerosols like S8 can form. HSO photolysis contributes to the formation of such sulphur chains, which have been proposed as indirect signatures of volcanic outgassing. Assessing the sensitivity of photochemical models to different UV-Visible cross-section prescriptions for HSO is therefore important for guiding its prioritization among poorly characterised atmospheric species. Here, we derive an updated HSO cross-section prescription from simulated HSO2 data, providing a more reliable representation of HSO photolysis than HO2. We compare results from these new cross sections to the default prescription for temperate terrestrial planets with Archean-like atmospheres. We find that our updated HSO cross-section prescription enhances aerosol scattering and absorption signatures in transmission, emission and reflection spectra for planets orbiting G- and K-type stars.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.04275 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Top: HSO cross-section prescriptions from 120 to 500 nm. Bottom: Spectral energy distributions of the FGK-type stars used in the sensitivity tests, together with an M-type stellar spectrum. doi:10.5281/zenodo.20209640 and https://github.com/ alexoworlds/branco 2026 hso. 2.2. Photochemical Model Description This work makes use of the photochemical component of Atmos, a one-dimensional coupled photochemical￾climate mo… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Integrated HSO photolysis reaction rates as a function of SO2 surface fluxes, ranging from ×1 to ×103 Earth’s global volcanic sulphur flux, for an anoxic planet orbiting σ B¨ootis (F2V, in yellow), the Sun (G2V, in pur￾ple) and ϵ Eridani (K2V, in blue). Solid lines with circular markers show rates modelled using the updated HSO cross sections, while dashed lines with circular markers use HO2 data [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:f… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Left: Altitude-dependent volume mixing ratios of key species in an anoxic, Archean Earth-like atmosphere, orbiting the Sun, with an SO2 surface flux of 6 ×1010 molecules cm−2 s −1 (×20 Earth’s global volcanic sulphur flux). Solid lines show the altitude profiles modelled using the updated HSO cross sections presented in this work, while dashed lines show the profiles modelled using the default HSO prescription from … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Reaction rates for an anoxic, Archean-like planet orbiting the Sun, with an SO2 surface flux of 6 × 1010 molecules cm−2 s −1 . Solid lines show reaction rates modelled using the updated HSO cross sections, while dashed lines use HO2 cross sections. The plot on the left…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Top: Comparison of the transmission spectra modelled using the default (HO2) and updated (HSO2) HSO cross– section prescriptions for a planet orbiting the Sun with a surface SO2 flux of ×20 Earth’s global volcanic sulphur flux (SO2 = 6 ×1010 molecules cm−2 s −1 ). Bott…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Top: Comparison of the emission spectra modelled using the default (HO2) and updated (HSO2) HSO cross-section prescriptions for a planet orbiting the Sun with a surface SO2 flux of ×20 Earth’s global volcanic sulphur flux (SO2 = 6 ×1010 molecules cm−2 s −1 ). Bottom: S…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Top: Comparison of the reflection spectra modelled using the default (HO2) and updated (HSO2) HSO cross-section prescriptions for a planet orbiting the Sun with a surface SO2 flux of ×20 Earth’s global volcanic sulphur flux (SO2 = 6 ×1010 molecules cm−2 s −1 ). Bottom:…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Integrated HSO photolysis reaction rates as a function of SO2 surface fluxes, ranging from ×1 to ×103 Earth’s global volcanic sulphur flux, for an anoxic planet orbiting σ B¨ootis (F2V, in yellow), the Sun (G2V, in purple) and ϵ Eridani (K2V, in blue). Solid lines with…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    D., Meadows, V

    Arney, G., Domagal-Goldman, S. D., Meadows, V. S., et al. 2016, Astrobiology, 16, 873, doi: 10.1089/ast.2015.1422

    doi:10.1089/ast.2015.1422 2016

  2. [2]

    2010, Physical Chemistry, 9th edn

    Atkins, P., & de Paula, J. 2010, Physical Chemistry, 9th edn. (OUP Oxford)

    2010

  3. [3]

    A., et al

    Bello-Arufe, A., Damiano, M., Bennett, K. A., et al. 2025, ApJL, 980, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adaf22

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adaf22 2025

  4. [4]

    W., Ranjan, S., et al

    Broussard, W., Schwieterman, E. W., Ranjan, S., et al. 2024, ApJ, 967, 114, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3a65

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad3a65 2024

  5. [5]

    W., Sousa-Silva, C., et al

    Broussard, W., Schwieterman, E. W., Sousa-Silva, C., et al. 2025, ApJ, 980, 198, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adaaf0

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adaaf0 2025

  6. [6]

    C., & Zahnle, K

    Catling, D. C., & Zahnle, K. J. 2020, Science Advances, 6, eaax1420, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aax1420

    doi:10.1126/sciadv.aax1420 2020

  7. [7]

    Denis, P. A. 2009, Spectrochimica Acta Part A: Molecular and Biomolecular Spectroscopy, 72, 720, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.saa.2008.11.002

    work page doi:10.1016/j.saa.2008.11.002 2009

  8. [8]

    C., Bastelberger, S

    Felton, R. C., Bastelberger, S. T., Mandt, K. E., et al. 2022, Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets), 127, e06853, doi: 10.1029/2021JE006853

    work page doi:10.1029/2021je006853 2022

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    C., & Francisco, J

    Fortenberry, R. C., & Francisco, J. S. 2021, The Journal of Chemical Physics, 155, 114301, doi: 10.1063/5.0062560

    2021 doi

  2. [10]

    D., Domagal-Goldman, S., et al

    Fortney, J., Robinson, T. D., Domagal-Goldman, S., et al. 2019, Astro2020: Decadal Survey on Astronomy and Astrophysics, 2020, 146, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1905.07064

    2019 doi arXiv

  3. [11]

    B., Kim, S.-T., Farquhar, J., et al

    Franz, H. B., Kim, S.-T., Farquhar, J., et al. 2014, Nature, 508, 364, doi: 10.1038/nature13175

    2014 doi

  4. [12]

    A., Downing, H

    Fuller, K. A., Downing, H. D., & Querry, M. R. 1998, in Handbook of Optical Constants of Solids III, ed. E. D. Palik (San Diego: Academic Press), 1025–1041

    1998

  5. [13]

    2025, ApJL, 990, L53, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adf62e

    Glidden, A., Ranjan, S., Seager, S., et al. 2025, ApJL, 990, L53, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adf62e

    2025 doi

  6. [14]

    E., Pavlov, A

    Harman, C. E., Pavlov, A. A., Babikov, D., & Kasting, J. F. 2018, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 496, 238, doi: 10.1016/j.epsl.2018.05.041

    2018 doi

  7. [15]

    2012, ApJ, 761, 166, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/166

    Hu, R., Seager, S., & Bains, W. 2012, ApJ, 761, 166, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/166

    2012 doi

  8. [16]

    2013, ApJ, 769, 6, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/769/1/6

    Hu, R., Seager, S., & Bains, W. 2013, ApJ, 769, 6, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/769/1/6

    2013 doi

  9. [17]

    Irikura, K. K. 2007, Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data, 36, 389, doi: 10.1063/1.2436891

    2007 doi

  10. [18]

    Jacox, M. E. 1998, Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data, 27, 115, doi: 10.1063/1.556017

    1998 doi

  11. [19]

    F., Liu, S

    Kasting, J. F., Liu, S. C., & Donahue, T. M. 1979, J. Geophys. Res., 84, 3097, doi: 10.1029/JC084iC06p03097

    1979 doi

  12. [20]

    F., & Walker, J

    Kasting, J. F., & Walker, J. C. G. 1981, J. Geophys. Res., 86, 1147, doi: 10.1029/JC086iC02p01147

    1981 doi

  13. [21]

    2024, The Journal of Physical Chemistry A, 128, 2594, doi: 10.1021/acs.jpca.3c07920

    Li, C., Xiao, L., Bian, L., Xu, H., & Yan, B. 2024, The Journal of Physical Chemistry A, 128, 2594, doi: 10.1021/acs.jpca.3c07920

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    E., Rothman, L

    Li, G., Gordon, I. E., Rothman, L. S., et al. 2015, ApJS, 216, 15, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/216/1/15

    2015 doi

  15. [23]

    J., et al

    Lu, B., Trabelsi, T., Esposito, V. J., et al. 2021, The Journal of Physical Chemistry A, 125, 10615, doi: 10.1021/acs.jpca.1c09311

    2021 doi

  16. [24]

    MacDonald, R. J. 2023, The Journal of Open Source Software, 8, 4873, doi: 10.21105/joss.04873

    2023 doi

  17. [25]

    J., & Madhusudhan, N

    MacDonald, R. J., & Madhusudhan, N. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 1979, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx804

    2017 doi

  18. [26]

    2024, in AAS/Division for Extreme Solar Systems Abstracts, Vol

    Mamajek, E., & Stapelfeldt, K. 2024, in AAS/Division for Extreme Solar Systems Abstracts, Vol. 56, AASTCS10, Extreme Solar Systems V, 628.17

    2024

  19. [27]

    Manabe, S., & Wetherald, R. T. 1967, Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 24, 241, doi: 10.1175/1520- 0469(1967)024⟨0241:TEOTAW⟩2.0.CO;2

    1967 doi

  20. [28]

    K., & MacDonald, R

    Mullens, E., Lewis, N. K., & MacDonald, R. J. 2024, ApJ, 977, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8575 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023, Pathways to Discovery in Astronomy and Astrophysics for the 2020s (Washington, DC: The National Academies Press), d...

    2024 doi

  21. [29]

    E., et al

    Niraula, P., de Wit, J., Gordon, I. E., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 1287, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01773-1

    2022 doi

  22. [30]

    1998, Handbook of Optical Constants of Solids, Academic Press handbook series No

    Palik, E. 1998, Handbook of Optical Constants of Solids, Academic Press handbook series No. vol. 3 (Elsevier Science). https://books.google.pt/books?id=nxoqxyoHfbIC

    1998

  23. [31]

    2025, Experimental Astronomy, 59, 29, doi: 10.1007/s10686-025-10000-4

    Palle, E., Biazzo, K., Bolmont, E., et al. 2025, Experimental Astronomy, 59, 29, doi: 10.1007/s10686-025-10000-4

    2025 doi

  24. [32]

    A., Brandeker, A., Kitzmann, D., et al

    Patel, J. A., Brandeker, A., Kitzmann, D., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A159, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450748

    2024 doi

  25. [33]

    A., & Kasting, J

    Pavlov, A. A., & Kasting, J. F. 2002, Astrobiology, 2, 27, doi: 10.1089/153110702753621321

    2002 doi

  26. [34]

    B., & Zerbi, G

    Person, W. B., & Zerbi, G. 1982, Elsevier Science

    1982

  27. [35]

    2025, ApJ, 989, 181, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adf207

    Piaulet-Ghorayeb, C., Benneke, B., Turbet, M., et al. 2025, ApJ, 989, 181, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adf207

    2025 doi

  28. [36]

    L., Kyuberis, A

    Polyansky, O. L., Kyuberis, A. A., Zobov, N. F., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 2597, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1877 18

    2018 doi

  29. [37]

    P., Ottiger, M., Fontanet, E., et al

    Quanz, S. P., Ottiger, M., Fontanet, E., et al. 2022, A&A, 664, A21, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140366

    2022 doi

  30. [38]

    W., Harman, C., et al

    Ranjan, S., Schwieterman, E. W., Harman, C., et al. 2020, ApJ, 896, 148, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9363

    2020 doi

  31. [39]

    Sander, S., Abbatt, J. P. D., Barker, J. R., et al. 2011, JPL Publication 10-6; Pasadena, CA: JPL. http://jpldataeval.jpl.nasa.gov/

    2011

  32. [40]

    Schurath, U., Weber, M., & Becker, K. H. 1977, JChPh, 67, 110, doi: 10.1063/1.434553

    1977 doi

  33. [41]

    W., Olson, S

    Schwieterman, E. W., Olson, S. L., Pidhorodetska, D., et al. 2022, ApJ, 937, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8cfb

    2022 doi

  34. [42]

    F., et al

    Segura, A., Krelove, K., Kasting, J. F., et al. 2003, Astrobiology, 3, 689, doi: 10.1089/153110703322736024

    2003 doi

  35. [43]

    H., & Pandis, S

    Seinfeld, J. H., & Pandis, S. N. 2006, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics: From Air Pollution to Climate Change, 2nd edn. (John Wiley & Sons)

    2006

  36. [44]

    Catling, D. C. 2017, Icarus, 290, 46, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2017.02.022

    2017 doi

  37. [45]

    J., Lanza, N., et al

    Sklute, E., Gasda, P. J., Lanza, N., et al. 2024, in AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 2024, AGU Fall Meeting

    2024

  38. [46]

    J., & Seager, S

    Sousa-Silva, C., Petkowski, J. J., & Seager, S. 2019, Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics, 21, 18970

    2019

  39. [47]

    N., Al-Refaie, A

    Tennyson, J., Yurchenko, S. N., Al-Refaie, A. F., et al. 2016, Journal of Molecular Spectroscopy, 327, 73

    2016

  40. [48]

    N., et al

    Thuillier, G., Floyd, L., Woods, T. N., et al. 2004, in Solar Variability and its Effects on Climate. Geophysical Monograph 141, ed. J. M. Pap, P. Fox, C. Frohlich, H. S

    2004

  41. [49]

    Hudson, J. Kuhn, J. McCormack, G. North, W. Sprigg, & S. T. Wu, Vol. 141, 171, doi: 10.1029/141GM13

    doi

  42. [50]

    G., Alkemade, S

    Tomkins, A. G., Alkemade, S. L., Nutku, S. E., et al. 2020, GeoCoA, 290, 59, doi: 10.1016/j.gca.2020.07.022

    2020 doi

  43. [51]

    2025, ApJ, 981, 148, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb02e

    Wiesenfeld, L., Niraula, P., de Wit, J., et al. 2025, ApJ, 981, 148, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb02e

    2025 doi

  44. [52]

    2020, MNRAS, 496, 5282, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1874

    Tennyson, J. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 5282, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1874

    2020 doi

  45. [53]

    N., Owens, A., Kefala, K., & Tennyson, J

    Yurchenko, S. N., Owens, A., Kefala, K., & Tennyson, J. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 3719, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae148

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed July 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.