Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 7 minor 2 cited by

Theoretical ISM pressure and electron density diagnostics for local and high-redshift galaxies

T0 review · 2 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper derives self-consistent theoretical grids that turn UV, optical, and infrared emission-line ratios into ISM pressure and electron density for star-forming galaxies, and demonstrates that the [S II] and [O II] density…

desk verdict A solid, internally consistent calibration-grid paper that is worth refereeing; the high-redshift claims rest on an unquantified abundance-scaling assumption, but the inner logic holds. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.05504 v2 pith:KMBANSB7 submitted 2019-08-15 astro-ph.GA

Lisa J. Kewley , David C. Nicholls , Ralph S. Sutherland , Jane R. Rigby , Ayan Acharyya , Michael A. Dopita , Matthew B. Bayliss This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords galaxies:starburstabundancesfundamentalparametersISMpressureelectrondensityemission-linediagnosticsphotoionizationmodelsHIIregions
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 is trying to establish a theoretically grounded way to read the physical state of ionized gas in star-forming galaxies from its emission lines, usable from local H II regions to high redshift. It produces grids that convert UV, optical, and IR line ratios into ISM pressure and electron density, and argues that pressure is often a more meaningful quantity than a single density because real nebulae contain temperature and density structure. It also demonstrates a specific hazard: the widely used [S II] and [O II] density diagnostics trace different ionization zones, so treating them interchangeably can mislead unless the electron temperature is constant.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is a grid of constant-pressure photoionization models in which electron temperature and density are solved step by step through the nebula, together with companion constant-density grids and simple fixed-temperature atomic models that isolate temperature effects. Each diagnostic line ratio considered—[Si III], [C III], [Al II], [Ne IV], [N IV], [O II], [Ar IV], [N I], [Cl III], [S II], [S III], [O III], and [N II]—is mapped over five metallicities and nine ionization parameters to give pressure and density calibration curves, including the density range over which each ratio is useful and its temperature sensitivity.

What would settle it

Measure [S II], [O II], and the electron temperature in a set of spatially resolved H II regions spanning metallicities $\log(\mathrm{O/H})+12 = 7.6$ to $9.2$. The claim predicts that at fixed electron temperature the two ratios give the same density and shift with metallicity by up to 0.4 dex; observing that they disagree at constant temperature by more than that would falsify the zoning and metallicity calibration.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a new grid of self-consistent photoionization models, run at constant pressure and separately at constant density, provides reliable calibrations that turn emission-line ratios across the ultraviolet, optical, and infrared into ISM pressure and electron density for metallicities $\log(\mathrm{O/H})+12 = 7.63$ to $9.23$, pressures $4 < \log(P/k) < 9$, and densities $0 < \log(n_e/\mathrm{cm^{-3}}) < 5$. The grids, presented in Tables 1 and 2 and Figures 5 through 17, show a large metallicity dependence: for a fixed line ratio the inferred pressure can shift by up to about an order of magnitude across the model metallicity range, and the traditional [S II] density estimate can shift by up to 0.4 dex. The paper further establishes, from the computed ionization structure, that [S II] is produced in the outer partially ionized zone while [O II] is produced closer to the ionizing source, so the two diagnostics should not be used interchangeably unless the electron temperature is known to be constant.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the adopted nebular abundance scaling—based on local B-star photospheric abundances and a fixed amount of iron depletion onto dust—is valid at all grid metallicities and at high redshift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • ISM pressure can be measured directly from calibrated line ratios rather than inferred from density under a fixed-temperature assumption.
  • Electron-density estimates from [S II] should be corrected for gas-phase metallicity; differences up to 0.4 dex in density can arise solely from abundance changes.
  • [S II] and [O II] densities should not be averaged or used interchangeably because the two ratios probe different ionized zones within a nebula.
  • Combining ratios that trace different ionization zones lets observers map pressure stratification in resolved H II regions, from outer [N I] and [S II] zones to inner high-ionization zones.
  • The calibrations extend to UV and IR lines observable at high redshift, so future resolved observations can measure ISM pressure in early-universe galaxies.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the zoning claim is right, published high-redshift electron densities that mix [S II] and [O II] without metallicity corrections may contain systematic offsets that mimic or hide evolutionary trends; re-analysis with zone- and metallicity-aware calibrations could shift those measurements.
  • The same theoretical grids could be inverted to diagnose gas-phase metallicity from pressure-sensitive ratios when pressure is constrained independently, a use the paper does not explore.
  • The fixed iron depletion of -1.5 dex is a lever: if future observations show depletion varies with metallicity or redshift, the pressure calibrations can be rescaled, but the qualitative zone-separation result would likely survive.
  • The ratio combinations can be applied to Monte Carlo photoionization simulations of clumpy media to derive corrections for unresolved clumping, connecting the diagnostics to the paper's discussion of density structure.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 7 minor

Summary. This paper presents theoretical grids of photoionization models (MAPPINGS v5.1 with Starburst99 ionizing spectra) that calibrate emission-line ratios as diagnostics of ISM pressure (P/k) and electron density (ne) in H II regions and star-forming galaxies. Three model families are computed: constant-pressure models (log P/k = 4 to 9), constant-density models (log ne = 0 to 5), and single-atom fixed-temperature models, each spanning metallicities log(O/H)+12 = 7.63 to 9.23 and ionization parameters log q = 6.5 to 8.5. The calibrations cover UV ratios ([Si III]/Si III], [C III]/C III], [Al II]/Al II], [Ne IV], [N IV]/N IV]), optical ratios ([O II], [S II], [Ar IV], [N I], [Cl III]), and infrared fine-structure ratios ([S III], [O III], [N II]), with tabulated flux ratios in Tables 1 and 2 and calibration curves in Figures 5-17. The main conclusions are that the diagnostics depend strongly on gas-phase metallicity (up to ~1 dex in log P/k) with a weaker ionization-parameter dependence; that different ratios probe different ionization zones, with the [S II] and [O II] doublets tracing different regions so that they should not be used interchangeably unless the electron temperature is known to be constant; and that ISM pressure is a more robust quantity to measure than a single electron density in nebulae with gradients or clumps.

Significance. If the calibrations stand, this is a timely community resource: a single, internally consistent set of pressure and density grids from the UV to the far-IR for JWST- and ALMA-era spectroscopy. The construction is genuinely forward-modeling — the grids are computed from photoionization theory, not fitted to the pressures or densities they calibrate — so no circularity arises. Notable strengths include the [S II] calibration agreeing with the classical Osterbrock (1989) relation near Z ~ 8.9-9.2 (Section 4.7.5); the plane-parallel diagnostics recovering the density structure of a spherical model to within a few percent (Section 5.1, Figure 19); and the zone-separation claim directly supported by the model emission profiles in Figure 21, making the [S II]/[O II] warning a falsifiable prediction. The quantified metallicity sensitivity — 0.4 dex on [S II]-derived densities, ~1 dex on pressures — is itself an important caution for the high-redshift literature.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 2.2: abundance scaling and Fe depletion anchor.] The calibration grids are computed with a single nebular abundance pattern — the local B-star scale of Nieva & Przybilla (2012) with the scaling of Nicholls et al. (2017) — and a single gas-phase Fe depletion of -1.5 dex anchored to an unpublished analysis cited as 'Dopita et al., in prep'. This choice is load-bearing for the central claim that Tables 1-2 and Figures 5-17 map line ratios to P and ne from local to high-redshift galaxies over Z = 7.63-9.23. The paper itself quantifies metallicity effects of up to ~1 dex in log(P/k) for the pressure diagnostics (Sections 4.3 and 4.8.2) and 0.4 dex for the [S II] density diagnostic (Section 4.7.5), and Section 5.4 concedes that competing metallicity calibrations disagree by up to 1 dex; an error in the abundance pattern or depletion at fixed O/H therefore propagates almost directly into the derived P or ne, with the Si- and Al-based UV diagnostics (Sections 4.3-4.5) affected directly because those elements are depleted. No grid variants, sensitivity runs, or propagated depletion uncertainties are presented. I request bracketing models spanning, for example, Fe depletions of -1.0 and -2.0 dex and at least one alternative alpha-element or S/O scaling, with the resulting shifts in the calibration curves quantified, so that the high-redshift and super-solar validity claims are supported rather than assumed.
  2. [Tables 1-2 and Section 5.3: uncertainty budget.] No uncertainty budget is given for the calibrations. Tables 1 and 2 list flux ratios to five significant figures and Figures 5-17 plot single calibration curves, yet Section 3 shows that the Case-2 ratios (e.g., C III], Si III]) are 'extremely sensitive' to electron temperature within their usable density ranges, that the IR Case-3 ratios have strong temperature dependence in the low-density limit, and that Case-1 ratios shift by up to ~0.15 dex between log Te = 3.5 and 4.5; Section 5.3 acknowledges that differing atomic datasets can shift derived densities (Copetti & Writzl 2002; Proxauf et al. 2014); and Section 4.7.1 attributes the shape difference between its [O II] calibration and Osterbrock (1989) to changes in oxygen atomic data. A user therefore cannot tell whether a disagreement between two diagnostics is a physical zone effect, as argued in Section 5.2, or an atomic-data offset. I request that the paper propagate collision-strength and A-value uncertainties on at least the [O II], [S II], [S III], [O III], and [N II] calibrations, or state an explicit accuracy floor for the tables.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Section 3.1, Eq. (3).] Equation (3) gives the radiative depopulation rate as R_ji^rad = ne Nj Aji, but spontaneous radiative decay does not depend on the electron density and the expression is dimensionally inconsistent (cm^-6 s^-1 on the right-hand side). It should read R_ji^rad = Nj Aji; Equation (4) already contains the required ne factor for collisional de-excitation. The subsequent critical-density definition is the standard one, so the model grids are unaffected, but the equation as printed is incorrect.
  2. [Section 5.1 and Figure 19 caption.] The density-recovery percentages are reported inconsistently: the text states that '[S II] and [N II]' match the true density to within 3% and that '[O II] and [N II]' agree to within 5% and 7%, while the Figure 19 caption says '[O II] and [N II]' provide the best fit, within 3%. One of the [N II] mentions is likely a typo for [N I]; please reconcile the text and caption so that each of [S II], [O II], [N II], and [N I] is assigned its measured recovery accuracy.
  3. [Sections 4.8.1 and 4.8.3.] Unit labels are garbled in the electron-density ranges: Section 4.8.1 gives '2.5 < log(ne cm3) < 4' (presumably log(ne/cm^-3)) and Section 4.8.3 quotes the [N II] density range as '1 < log(P/k) < 2.5' and 'log(P/k) < 1', where the quantity must be log(ne), not log(P/k).
  4. [Table 1, [O III] column.] In Table 1 the [O III] column header lists 'lambda52um lambda88um', whereas the text and Figure 16 use the ratio [O III] 88um/[O III] 52um; the tabulated values (greater than unity at low pressure) are consistent with 88/52, so the header ordering appears inconsistent. Please state the ratio convention explicitly and apply it uniformly to the table columns and figures.
  5. [Tables 1 and 2.] The tables contain many entries '...' and exact '0.0000' values, but the meaning is not documented. If '...' flags lines below the stated detectability threshold (flux < 1e-5 Hbeta) and '0.0000' flags a zero or undefined ratio, a footnote is needed; as printed, a reader cannot tell whether a quoted 0.0000 is an undetected numerator line, a saturated ratio, or a missing model.
  6. [Sections 1 and 2.2, notation.] Several notation slips should be cleaned up: in Section 1 the pressure-density relation appears as 'n = P Tek' and should be n = P/(Te k); in Section 2.2 the units of P/k are given as 'cm^-3k' and should be K cm^-3; and the same section should specify that the relative metallicity scaling is applied to the nebular abundances, not the stellar tracks, to avoid ambiguity.
  7. [Reference list.] Several load-bearing inputs are cited as unpublished: the Fe-depletion anchor ('Dopita et al., in prep', Section 2.2), the matching metallicity surface ('Kewley et al., ARAA, submitted', Section 5.4), and the temperature diagnostics ('Nicholls et al., in prep', Section 3.2). For a calibration paper whose tables will be used at face value, at least the depletion anchor should be backed by a citable public analysis by the time of publication.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the diagnostics are forward-model inversions, not fits to the quantities they calibrate.

full rationale

The pressure and density diagnostics are produced by MAPPINGS v5.1 photoionization calculations in which metallicity, ionization parameter, and pressure/density are independent inputs and line ratios are outputs (Section 2.2, Tables 1-2). The calibrations in Figures 5-17 are inversions of these forward grids; no observed pressure or density is used to tune the models. The paper states that it 'use[s] the ISM pressure as a variable input parameter into our photoionization models rather than constraining the pressure by the mechanical luminosity of the stellar evolution models' (Section 2.2), making the table-lookup nature of the diagnostics explicit rather than circular. The abundance scaling and Fe depletion are input assumptions inherited from prior work (Nicholls et al. 2017; Dopita et al., in prep); concerns about their validity at high redshift are modeling/correctness risks, not circular reductions, because the derived line-ratio-to-pressure mapping is not equivalent to those inputs. External comparison to Osterbrock (1989) for [S II] and the discussion of atomic-data changes for [O II] show the grids are not fitted to existing calibrations. No step in the derivation defines its target in terms of its input or fits a parameter and then relabels it as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims depend on the fidelity of the MAPPINGS photoionization code and its input physics, including stellar SEDs, nebular abundances, and atomic data. These are inherited from prior work rather than derived here. The paper adds a new diagnostic grid and analysis, without postulating any new physical entities.

free parameters (1)
  • Fe depletion = -1.5 dex
    Adopted from WiFeS observations (Dopita et al., in prep) and applied to all nebular models (Section 2.2). It affects the cooling and temperature structure that drives the metallicity dependence of the diagnostics.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption MAPPINGS v5.1 photoionization code correctly computes ionization, temperature, and emission-line spectra
    The entire calibration grid is produced by this code, described in Section 2.2. Any systematic error in the code propagates into all diagnostics.
  • domain assumption Starburst99 with Pauldrach/Hillier model atmospheres and Geneva high mass-loss tracks provides a valid ionizing radiation field
    Used in Section 2.1 as the input stellar SED. Uncertainties in stellar atmospheres or mass-loss rates would bias the predicted line ratios.
  • domain assumption The Nieva & Przybilla (2012) local B-star abundance scale and the Nicholls et al. (2017) element scaling apply at all modeled metallicities
    Invoked in Section 2.2 to set nebular abundances. The paper's central metallicity dependence result rests on this extrapolation.
  • domain assumption Atomic data from CHIANTI 8 and NIST are accurate for the relevant transitions
    Section 2.2 states the use of CHIANTI 8, and Section 5.3 discusses atomic data as a source of offsets. Inaccuracies would shift the density and pressure calibrations.
  • domain assumption Pressure equilibrium holds in most H II regions because the sound crossing time is less than the heating and cooling timescales
    This justifies the constant-pressure Pressure Models in Section 2.2, following Field (1965) and Begelman (1990). If real H II regions are not pressure-supported in this way, the pressure diagnostics would not apply.
  • domain assumption Plane-parallel geometry adequately represents observed H II regions for diagnostic calibration
    The pressure and density model grids use plane-parallel geometry (Section 2.2). The authors state spherical models give nearly identical spectra for similar effective ionization parameters, but the approximation is still a modeling assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Theoretical ISM pressure and electron density diagnostics for local and high-redshift galaxies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KMBANSB7

@misc{pith2026190805504,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Theoretical ISM pressure and electron density diagnostics for local and high-redshift galaxies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KMBANSB7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.05504}
}
read the original abstract

We derive new self-consistent theoretical UV, optical, and IR diagnostics for the ISM pressure and electron density in the ionized nebulae of star-forming galaxies. Our UV diagnostics utilize the inter-combination, forbidden and resonance lines of silicon, carbon, aluminum, neon, and nitrogen. We also calibrate the optical and IR forbidden lines of oxygen, argon, nitrogen and sulfur. We show that line ratios used as ISM pressure diagnostics depend on the gas-phase metallicity with a residual dependence on the ionization parameter of the gas. In addition, the traditional electron density diagnostic [S II] {\lambda}6731/[S II] {\lambda}6717 is strongly dependent on the gas-phase metallicity. We show how different emission-line ratios are produced in different ionization zones in our theoretical nebulae. The [S II] and [O II] ratios are produced in different zones, and should not be used interchangeably to measure the electron density of the gas unless the electron temperature is known to be constant. We review the temperature and density distributions observed within H II regions and discuss the implications of these distributions on measuring the electron density of the gas. Many H II regions contain radial variations in density. We suggest that the ISM pressure is a more meaningful quantity to measure in H II regions or galaxies. Specific combinations of line ratios can cover the full range of ISM pressures (4 < log(P/k) < 9). As H II regions become resolved at increasingly high redshift through the next generation telescopes, we anticipate that these diagnostics will be important for understanding the conditions around the young, hot stars from the early universe to the present day.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.05504 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Emission line flux ratios versus electron density for Case 1 line ratios N i, O ii, Ne iv, S ii, and Cl iii, and Ar iv. Case 1 ratios are based on forbidden lines that have low radiative transition probabilities. The curves were were calculated with our MAPPINGS v5.1 code using single atom data for electron densities between 1 and 108 cm−3 , and electron temperatures for log(Te) = 3.5 (red), 4.0 (black) and 4.5 (blu… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Emission line flux ratios for C iii, N iv, O v, Al ii, Si iii and S v, calculated with MAPPINGS v5.1 using single atom data for electron densities between 1 and 108 cm−3 , and electron temperatures for log(Te) = 3.5, 4.0 and 4.5, covering the conditions likely to be encountered in an H ii region. Dashed lines show the range over which the line ratios provide reliable estimates of the electron density. The density di… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Emission line flux ratios for N ii, O iii and S iii, calculated with MAPPINGS v5.1 using single atom data for electron densities between 1 and 108 cm−3 , and electron temperatures for log(Te) = 3.5, 4.0 and 4.5, covering the conditions likely to be encountered in an H ii region. These density diagnostics for Case 3 line ratios are insensitive to electron temperature for the range over which the line ratios provide r… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (19 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Electron temperature (Te) and electron density (ne) as a function of shell thickness for our plane parallel constant pressure models. Columns show different pressure and ionization models: log(P/k) = 5.0, log(q) = 7.0 (left), log(P/k) = 5.0, log(q) = 8.0 (middle), and …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The theoretical relationship between the [Si III] λ1883/Si III] λ1892 ratio and the ISM pressure (left) and electron density (right) for the metallicities (colored curves) and ionization parameter (solid, dotted, dashed, and dot-dashed lines) covered by our models, as …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The Osterbrock [O II] relation has a differ￾ent shape to our calibration because the atomic datasets for oxygen have changed substantially over the past two decades (Proxauf et al. 2014). 4.7.2. The [Ar IV] ratio The [Ar IV] λ4711, 40 doublet is weak (∼ 1×10−4×Hβ) for…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The theoretical relationship between the [C III] λ1906/C III] λ1909 ratio and the ISM pressure (left) and the electron density (right) for the metallicities (colored curves) and ionization parameter (solid, dotted, dashed, and dot-dashed lines) covered by our models, a…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The theoretical relationship between the [Al II] λ2660/Al II] λ2669 ratio and the ISM pressure (left) and electron density (right) for the metallicities (colored curves) and ionization parameter (solid, dotted, dashed, and dot-dashed lines) covered by our models, as sh…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The theoretical relationship between the [Ne IV] λ2425/[Ne IV] λ2423 ratio and the ISM pressure (left) and electron density (right) for the metallicities (colored curves) and ionization parameter (solid, dotted, dashed, and dot-dashed lines) covered by our models, as s…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The theoretical relationship between the [N IV] λ1483/N IV] λ1486 ratio and the ISM pressure (left) and electron density (right) for the metallicities (colored curves) and ionization parameter (solid, dotted, dashed, and dot-dashed lines) covered by our models, as show…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The theoretical relationship between the [O II] λ3729/[O II] λ3727 ratio and the ISM pressure (left) and electron density (right) in cm s−1 for the metallicities (colored curves) and ionization parameter (solid, dotted, dashed, and dot-dashed lines) covered by our mod…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The theoretical relationship between the [Ar IV] λ4711/[Ar IV] λ4740 ratio and the ISM pressure (left) and electron density (right) for the metallicities (colored curves) and ionization parameter (solid, dotted, dashed, and dot-dashed lines) covered by our models, as …
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The theoretical relationship between the [N I] λ5198, 5200 ratio and the ISM pressure (left) and electron density (right) for the metallicities (colored curves) and ionization parameter (solid, dotted, dashed, and dot-dashed lines) covered by our models, as shown in t…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The theoretical relationship between the [Cl III] λ5517/[Cl III] λ5537 ratio and the ISM pressure (left) and electron density (right) for the metallicities (colored curves) and ionization parameter (solid, dotted, dashed, and dot-dashed lines) covered by our models, a…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The theoretical relationship between the [S II] λ6717, 31 ratio and the ISM pressure (left) and the electron density (right) for the metallicities (colored curves) and ionization parameter (solid, dotted, dashed, and dot-dashed lines) covered by our models, as shown i…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: The theoretical relationship between the [S III] 33µm/[S III] 18µm ratio and the ISM pressure (left) and the electron density (right) for the metallicities (colored curves) and ionization parameter (solid, dotted, dashed, and dot-dashed lines) covered by our models, a…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: The theoretical relationship between the [O III] 88µm/[O III] 52µm ratio and the ISM pressure for the metallicities (colored curves) and ionization parameter (solid, dotted, dashed, and dot-dashed lines) covered by our models, as shown in the legend where Z= log(O/H) …
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: The theoretical relationship between the [N II] λ205µm/[N II] λ122µm ratio and the ISM pressure (left) and electron density (right) for the metallicities (colored curves) and ionization parameter (solid, dotted, dashed, and dot-dashed lines) covered by our models, as …
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Normalized thickness (radius) versus emission-line ratios for pressure and density sensitive emission-line ratios in a spherical model with log(O/H) + 12= 8.23, log(q) = 8.0 cm/s, and log(P/k) = 6 dyn. Coloured curves correspond to different emission-line ratios, as s…
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: The ionization energy and critical densities of the pressure-sensitive species considered in this work. The ionization energy here is the energy required to create the ion in its ground state, not the energy required to ionize the atom into a higher ionization state. …
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Normalized thickness (radius) versus the loga￾rithm of the electron density for the [S II] λ6717/[S II] λ6731, [O II] λ3729/[O II] λ3727, [N II] 205µm/[N II] 122µm, and [N I] λ5198/[N I] λ5200 emission-line ratios in a spherical model with log(O/H) + 12= 8.23, log(q) …
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: The ionization zones for the density-sensitive emission-line pairs for which we provide ISM pressure and density calibrations (described in Section 4). The different panels show how different levels of ionization probe different regions of the nebula. identifying emis…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Unveiling and Characterising Ubiquitous Nitrogen Enhancement in $6 \leq z \leq 10$ Galaxies with JWST Spectroscopy

    astro-ph.GA 2026-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Stacked JWST/NIRSpec spectra of 135 z=6-10 galaxies show supersolar N/O that is highest after a star-formation lull, consistent with delayed AGB enrichment and pristine gas inflows.

  2. Deep Spectroscopic Follow-Up of Maisie's Galaxy -- A Typical Galaxy in the Early Universe

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Deep JWST spectroscopy of Maisie's Galaxy at z=11.4 reveals moderate star formation, metallicity, and ionization consistent with a typical galaxy on the early star-formation main sequence rather than an extreme source.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

150 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    J., Carigi, L., Nissen, P

    Akerman, C. J., Carigi, L., Nissen, P. E., Pettini, M., & Asplund, M. 2004, A&A, 414, 931, astro-ph/0310472

    arXiv 2004

  2. [2]

    G., Dopita, M

    Allen, M. G., Dopita, M. A., & Tsvetanov, Z. I. 1998, ApJ, 493, 571, arXiv:astro-ph/9801040

    arXiv 1998

  3. [3]

    Kewley, L. J. 2008, ApJS, 178, 20, 0805.0204

    arXiv 2008

  4. [4]

    Aller, L. H. 1961, in Liege International Astrophysical Colloquia, Vol. 10, Liege International Astrophysical Colloquia, 534–537

    1961

  5. [5]

    H., Czyzak, S

    Aller, L. H., Czyzak, S. J., Walker, M. F., & Krueger, T. K. 1970, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 66, 1

    1970

  6. [6]

    Ascasibar, Y., Guidi, G., Casado, J., Scannapieco, C., & D´ ıaz, A. I. 2016, ArXiv e-prints, 1602.08474

    arXiv 2016

  7. [7]

    J., & Scott, P

    Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 481, 0909.0948

    arXiv 2009

  8. [8]

    E., Wood, K., Hill, A

    Barnes, J. E., Wood, K., Hill, A. S., & Haffner, L. M. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 559, 1411.5895

    arXiv 2015

Show all 150 references
  1. [9]

    D., Johnson, T., & Oguri, M

    Gladders, M. D., Johnson, T., & Oguri, M. 2013, ArXiv e-prints, 1310.6695

    2013 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Begelman, M. C. 1990, in Astrophysics and Space Science

    1990

  3. [11]

    1989, ApJ, 346, 735

    Bertoldi, F. 1989, ApJ, 346, 735

    1989

  4. [12]

    Bian, F. et al. 2010, ApJ, 725, 1877, 1004.4318

    2010 arXiv

  5. [13]

    A., & Tuohy, I

    Binette, L., Dopita, M. A., & Tuohy, I. R. 1985, ApJ, 297, 476

    1985

  6. [14]

    I., & Mayya, Y

    Binette, L., Gonz´ alez-G´ omez, D. I., & Mayya, Y. D. 2002, Revista Mexicana de Astronomia y Astrofisica Conference Series, 38, 279, astro-ph/0210646

    2002 arXiv

  7. [15]

    2009, ApJ, 704, 842, 0908.2810

    Adams, J. 2009, ApJ, 704, 842, 0908.2810

    2009 arXiv

  8. [16]

    A., Kewley, L., Vogt, F

    Blanc, G. A., Kewley, L., Vogt, F. P. A., & Dopita, M. A. 2015, ApJ, 798, 99, 1410.8146

    2015 arXiv

  9. [17]

    C., & Quinn, P

    Bland-Hawthorn, J., Freeman, K. C., & Quinn, P. J. 1997, ApJ, 490, 143, astro-ph/9706210

    1997 arXiv

  10. [18]

    R., Dale, D

    Brauher, J. R., Dale, D. A., & Helou, G. 2008, ApJS, 178, 280, 0805.2930

    2008 arXiv

  11. [19]

    2008, MNRAS, 385, 769, 0801.1678

    Brinchmann, J., Pettini, M., & Charlot, S. 2008, MNRAS, 385, 769, 0801.1678

    2008 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Carniani, S. et al. 2017, A&A, 605, A42, 1701.03468

    2017 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Charlot, S., & Bruzual, A. G. 1991, ApJ, 367, 126

    1991

  14. [22]

    Clegg, R. E. S., Harrington, J. P., Barlow, M. J., & Walsh, J. R. 1987, ApJ, 314, 551

    1987

  15. [23]

    Copetti, M. V. F., & Writzl, B. C. 2002, A&A, 382, 282

    2002

  16. [24]

    E., Ercolano, B., & Bonnell, I

    Dale, J. E., Ercolano, B., & Bonnell, I. A. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 2852, 1208.4486 de Pree, C. G., Rodriguez, L. F., & Goss, W. M. 1995, Revista Mexicana de Astronomia y Astrofisica, 31, 39 De Robertis, M. M., Dufour, R. J., & Hunt, R. W. 1987, JRASC, 81, 195

    2012 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Decarli, R. et al. 2012, ApJ, 752, 2, 1203.6852 Del Zanna, G., Dere, K. P., Young, P. R., Landi, E., & Mason, H. E. 2015, A&A, 582, A56

    2012 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Dopita, M. A. et al. 2006a, ApJ, 639, 788 ——. 2006b, ApJ, 647, 244, astro-ph/0606544

    arXiv

  19. [27]

    A., & Gibbons, A

    Dopita, M. A., & Gibbons, A. H. 1975, MNRAS, 171, 73

    1975

  20. [28]

    Dopita, M. A. et al. 2015, ApJ, 801, 42, 1501.02507

    2015 arXiv

  21. [29]

    A., Kewley, L

    Dopita, M. A., Kewley, L. J., Heisler, C. A., & Sutherland, R. S. 2000, ApJ, 542, 224

    2000

  22. [30]

    A., Kewley, L

    Dopita, M. A., Kewley, L. J., Sutherland, R. S., & Nicholls, D. C. 2016, Ap&SS, 361, 61, 1601.01337

    2016 arXiv

  23. [31]

    A., Mason, D

    Dopita, M. A., Mason, D. J., & Robb, W. D. 1976, ApJ, 207, 102

    1976

  24. [32]

    M., Ali, A., & Amer, M

    Basurah, H. M., Ali, A., & Amer, M. A. 2013, Ap&SS, 1312.4633

    2013 arXiv

  25. [33]

    L., Keenan, F

    Dufton, P. L., Keenan, F. P., & Kingston, A. E. 1984, MNRAS, 209, 1P

    1984

  26. [34]

    G., Kimura, T., & Tosa, M

    Elmegreen, B. G., Kimura, T., & Tosa, M. 1995, ApJ, 451, 675

    1995

  27. [35]

    J., & Storey, P

    Ercolano, B., Barlow, M. J., & Storey, P. J. 2005, MNRAS, 362, 1038, astro-ph/0507050

    2005 arXiv

  28. [36]

    J., Storey, P

    Ercolano, B., Barlow, M. J., Storey, P. J., & Liu, X.-W. 2003, MNRAS, 340, 1136, astro-ph/0209378

    2003 arXiv

  29. [37]

    R., Drake, J

    Ercolano, B., Young, P. R., Drake, J. J., & Raymond, J. C. 2008, ApJS, 175, 534, 0710.2103

    2008 arXiv

  30. [38]

    1999, A&A, 342, L37

    Esteban, C., Peimbert, M., & Torres-Peimbert, S. 1999, A&A, 342, L37

    1999

  31. [39]

    E., Asplund, M., Pettini, M., & Akerman, C

    Fabbian, D., Nissen, P. E., Asplund, M., Pettini, M., & Akerman, C. 2009, A&A, 500, 1143, 0810.0281 Ferkinhoff, C. et al. 2011, ApJ, 740, L29, 1109.1559 Ferkinhoff, C., Brisbin, D., Nikola, T., Stacey, G. J., Sheth, K.,

    2009 arXiv

  32. [40]

    2015, ApJ, 806, 260, 1505.00265 Ferkinhoff, C., Hailey-Dunsheath, S., Nikola, T., Parshley, S

    Hailey-Dunsheath, S., & Falgarone, E. 2015, ApJ, 806, 260, 1505.00265 Ferkinhoff, C., Hailey-Dunsheath, S., Nikola, T., Parshley, S. C.,

    2015 arXiv

  33. [41]

    J., Benford, D

    Stacey, G. J., Benford, D. J., & Staguhn, J. G. 2010, ApJ, 714, L147, 1003.4296

    2010 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Field, G. B. 1965, ApJ, 142, 531

    1965

  35. [43]

    Fischer, J. et al. 2010, A&A, 518, L41, 1005.2213

    2010 arXiv

  36. [44]

    2000, ApJ, 542, L143 Garc´ ıa-Benito, R

    Martos, M. 2000, ApJ, 542, L143 Garc´ ıa-Benito, R. et al. 2010, MNRAS, 408, 2234, 1007.1244

    2000 arXiv

  37. [45]

    F., Yıldız, U

    Goldsmith, P. F., Yıldız, U. A., Langer, W. D., & Pineda, J. L. 2015, ApJ, 814, 133, 1510.05706

    2015 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Gordon, K. D. et al. 2017, A&A, 603, A114, 1704.06584

    2017 arXiv

  39. [47]

    D., Misselt, K

    Gordon, K. D., Misselt, K. A., Witt, A. N., & Clayton, G. C. 2001, ApJ, 551, 269, astro-ph/0011575

    2001 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Grevesse, N., Scott, P., Asplund, M., & Sauval, A. J. 2015, A&A, 573, A27, 1405.0288

    2015 arXiv

  41. [49]

    2009, ApJ, 694, L26, 0901.2113

    Gritschneder, M., Naab, T., Walch, S., Burkert, A., & Heitsch, F. 2009, ApJ, 694, L26, 0901.2113

    2009 arXiv

  42. [50]

    A., Dopita, M

    Groves, B. A., Dopita, M. A., & Sutherland, R. S. 2004, ApJS, 153, 9

    2004

  43. [51]

    Gurzadian, G. A. 1975, MNRAS, 172, 249

    1975

  44. [52]

    1999, A&A, 342, 426, astro-ph/9811303 Haffner, L

    Gustafsson, B., Karlsson, T., Olsson, E., Edvardsson, B., & Ryde, N. 1999, A&A, 342, 426, astro-ph/9811303 Haffner, L. M. et al. 2009, Reviews of Modern Physics, 81, 969, 0901.0941

    1999 arXiv

  45. [53]

    S., & Tucker, D

    Buckley-Geer, E., Allam, S. S., & Tucker, D. L. 2009, ApJ, 701, 52, 0906.2197

    2009 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Herrera-Camus, R. et al. 2016, ApJ, 826, 175

    2016

  47. [55]

    J., & Miller, D

    Hillier, D. J., & Miller, D. L. 1998, ApJ, 496, 407

    1998

  48. [56]

    Ho, I.-T. et al. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 3894, 1407.2411 ——. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 1257, 1601.02022

    2014 arXiv

  49. [57]

    2004, A&A, 421, 649, astro-ph/0405049

    Bonifacio, P., & Molaro, P. 2004, A&A, 421, 649, astro-ph/0405049

    2004 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Ivison, R. J. et al. 2010, A&A, 518, L35, 1005.1071

    2010 arXiv

  51. [59]

    I., & Thuan, T

    Izotov, Y. I., & Thuan, T. X. 1999, ApJ, 511, 639, astro-ph/9811387

    1999 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Jenkins, E. B. 2009, ApJ, 700, 1299

    2009

  53. [61]

    E., & Kobulnicky, H

    Johnson, K. E., & Kobulnicky, H. A. 2003, ApJ, 597, 923, astro-ph/0308303

    2003 arXiv

  54. [62]

    2016, ArXiv e-prints, 1611.01166

    Kaasinen, M., Bian, F., Groves, B., Kewley, L., & Gupta, A. 2016, ArXiv e-prints, 1611.01166

    2016 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Kaler, J. B. 1978, ApJ, 225, 527

    1978

  56. [64]

    P., Feibelman, W

    Keenan, F. P., Feibelman, W. A., & Berrington, K. A. 1992, ApJ, 389, 443

    1992

  57. [65]

    J., & Dopita, M

    Kewley, L. J., & Dopita, M. A. 2002, ApJS, 142, 35

    2002

  58. [66]

    J., & Ellison, S

    Kewley, L. J., & Ellison, S. L. 2008, ApJ, 681, 1183, 0801.1849

    2008 arXiv

  59. [67]

    J., Rupke, D., Zahid, H

    Kewley, L. J., Rupke, D., Zahid, H. J., Geller, M. J., & Barton, E. J. 2010, ApJ, 721, L48, 1008.2204

    2010 arXiv

  60. [68]

    A., & Kewley, L

    Kobulnicky, H. A., & Kewley, L. J. 2004, ApJ, 617, 240

    2004

  61. [69]

    Ralchenko, Reader, J., & and NIST ASD Team

    Kramida, A., Yu. Ralchenko, Reader, J., & and NIST ASD Team. 2015, NIST Atomic Spectra Database (ver. 5.3), [Online]. Available: http://physics.nist.gov/asd [2016, November 27]. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD. ISM pressure and density diagnostics 27

    2015

  62. [70]

    2002, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference

    Kurtz, S. 2002, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference

    2002

  63. [71]

    267, Hot Star Workshop III: The Earliest Phases of Massive Star Birth, ed

    Series, Vol. 267, Hot Star Workshop III: The Earliest Phases of Massive Star Birth, ed. P. Crowther, 81, astro-ph/0111351

    arXiv

  64. [72]

    2013, A&A, 549, A65

    Lee, S.-J., & Hyung, S. 2013, A&A, 549, A65

    2013

  65. [73]

    D., Nesvadba, N

    Lehnert, M. D., Nesvadba, N. P. H., Le Tiran, L., Di Matteo, P., van Driel, W., Douglas, L. S., Chemin, L., & Bournaud, F. 2009, ApJ, 699, 1660, 0902.2784

    2009 arXiv

  66. [74]

    M., Kewley, L

    Levesque, E. M., Kewley, L. J., & Larson, K. L. 2010, AJ, 139, 712, 0908.0460

    2010 arXiv

  67. [75]

    E., Coil, A

    Liu, X., Shapley, A. E., Coil, A. L., Brinchmann, J., & Ma, C.-P. 2008, ApJ, 678, 758, 0801.1670

    2008 arXiv

  68. [76]

    J., Danziger, I

    Liu, X.-W., Luo, S.-G., Barlow, M. J., Danziger, I. J., & Storey, P. J. 2001, MNRAS, 327, 141

    2001

  69. [77]

    2009, Landolt B¨ ornstein, 0901.1149

    Lodders, K., Palme, H., & Gail, H.-P. 2009, Landolt B¨ ornstein, 0901.1149

    2009 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Lomax, O., & Whitworth, A. P. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 3542, 1603.01223 L´ opez-S´ anchez,´A. R., Dopita, M. A., Kewley, L. J., Zahid, H. J.,

    2016 arXiv

  71. [79]

    C., & Scharw¨ achter, J

    Nicholls, D. C., & Scharw¨ achter, J. 2012, MNRAS, 426, 2630, 1203.5021

    2012 arXiv

  72. [80]

    L., Satyapal, S., Fischer, J., Wolfire, M

    Luhman, M. L., Satyapal, S., Fischer, J., Wolfire, M. G., Sturm, E., Dudley, C. C., Lutz, D., & Genzel, R. 2003, ApJ, 594, 758, astro-ph/0305520

    2003 arXiv

  73. [81]

    J., Reynolds, R

    Madsen, G. J., Reynolds, R. J., & Haffner, L. M. 2006, ApJ, 652, 401, astro-ph/0609558

    2006 arXiv

  74. [82]

    2009, A&A, 500, L1, 0904.3793

    Maiolino, R., Caselli, P., Nagao, T., Walmsley, M., De Breuck, C., & Meneghetti, M. 2009, A&A, 500, L1, 0904.3793

    2009 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Maiolino, R. et al. 2005, A&A, 440, L51, astro-ph/0508064

    2005 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Malhotra, S. et al. 2001, ApJ, 561, 766, astro-ph/0106485

    2001 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Martin, C. L. 1996, ApJ, 465, 680, astro-ph/9601107 ——. 1997, ApJ, 491, 561

    1996 arXiv

  78. [86]

    1994, ApJ, 424, 599

    Martin, P., & Roy, J. 1994, ApJ, 424, 599

    1994

  79. [87]

    Mathis, J. S. 2000, ApJ, 544, 347, astro-ph/0010191

    2000 arXiv

  80. [88]

    J., & Dopita, M

    Meatheringham, S. J., & Dopita, M. A. 1991, ApJS, 75, 407

    1991

  81. [89]

    Medling, A. M. et al. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 2301, 1501.07289

    2015 arXiv

  82. [90]

    1993, in The Feedback of Chemical Evolution on the Stellar Content of Galaxies, ed

    Meynet, G. 1993, in The Feedback of Chemical Evolution on the Stellar Content of Galaxies, ed. D. Alloin & G. Stasi´ nska, 40

    1993

  83. [91]

    1994, A&AS, 103, 97

    Charbonnel, C. 1994, A&AS, 103, 97

    1994

  84. [92]

    2006, PhD thesis, The University of Arizona, United States – Arizona

    Moustakas, J. 2006, PhD thesis, The University of Arizona, United States – Arizona

    2006

  85. [93]

    T., & Calzetti, D

    Smith, J.-D. T., & Calzetti, D. 2010, ApJS, 190, 233, 1007.4547

    2010 arXiv

  86. [94]

    A., Dultzin, D., Marziani, P., & Sulentic, J

    Negrete, C. A., Dultzin, D., Marziani, P., & Sulentic, J. W. 2012, ApJ, 757, 62, 1107.3188

    2012 arXiv

  87. [95]

    C., Dopita, M

    Nicholls, D. C., Dopita, M. A., & Sutherland, R. S. 2012, ApJ, 752, 148, 1204.3880

    2012 arXiv

  88. [96]

    C., Sutherland, R

    Nicholls, D. C., Sutherland, R. S., Dopita, M. A., Kewley, L. J., & Groves, B. A. 2017, ArXiv e-prints, 1612.03546

    2017 arXiv

  89. [97]

    2012, A&A, 539, A143

    Nieva, M.-F., & Przybilla, N. 2012, A&A, 539, A143

    2012

  90. [98]

    E., Chen, Y

    Nissen, P. E., Chen, Y. Q., Carigi, L., Schuster, W. J., & Zhao, G. 2014, A&A, 568, A25, 1406.5218

    2014 arXiv

  91. [99]

    1979, A&A, 75, L17

    Nussbaumer, H., & Schild, H. 1979, A&A, 75, L17

    1979

  92. [100]

    Oey, M. S. et al. 2007, ApJ, 661, 801, astro-ph/0703033

    2007 arXiv

  93. [101]

    Osterbrock, D. E. 1989, Astrophysics of gaseous nebulae and active galactic nuclei (University Science Books)

    1989

  94. [102]

    Pagel, B. E. J., Edmunds, M. G., Blackwell, D. E., Chun, M. S., & Smith, G. 1979, MNRAS, 189, 95

    1979

  95. [103]

    Pagel, B. E. J., Simonson, E. A., Terlevich, R. J., & Edmunds, M. G. 1992, MNRAS, 255, 325

    1992

  96. [104]

    2010, ApJ, 719, 1964, 1007.0802

    Park, J.-W., Min, K.-W., Seon, K.-I., Han, W., & Edelstein, J. 2010, ApJ, 719, 1964, 1007.0802

    2010 arXiv

  97. [105]

    Pauldrach, A. W. A., Hoffmann, T. L., & Lennon, M. 2001, A&A, 375, 161 P´ erez, E., Gonz´ alez Delgado, R., & V´ ılchez, J. M. 2001, Astrophysics and Space Science Supplement, 277, 83

    2001

  98. [106]

    Phillips, J. P. 2007, MNRAS, 380, 369 ——. 2008, New Astronomy Reviews, 13, 60

    2007

  99. [107]

    K., Montenegro, M., Nahar, S

    Pradhan, A. K., Montenegro, M., Nahar, S. N., & Eissner, W. 2006, MNRAS, 366, L6, astro-ph/0510099

    2006 arXiv

  100. [108]

    2014, A&A, 561, A10, 1311.5041

    Proxauf, B., ¨Ottl, S., & Kimeswenger, S. 2014, A&A, 561, A10, 1311.5041

    2014 arXiv

  101. [109]

    T., Bania, T

    Quireza, C., Rood, R. T., Bania, T. M., Balser, D. S., & Maciel, W. J. 2006, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints, astro-ph/0609006

    2006 arXiv

  102. [110]

    Ramirez-Ballinas, I., & Hidalgo-G´ amez, A. M. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 2282

    2014

  103. [111]

    P., & P´ erez-Grana, J

    Ramos-Larios, G., Phillips, J. P., & P´ erez-Grana, J. A. 2010, MNRAS, 405, 245, 1003.1539

    2010 arXiv

  104. [112]

    Rand, R. J. 1998, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 15, 106

    1998

  105. [113]

    A., Kewley, L

    Rich, J. A., Kewley, L. J., & Dopita, M. A. 2011, ApJ, 734, 87, 1104.1177 ——. 2015, ApJS, 221, 28, 1509.08468

    2011 arXiv

  106. [114]

    A., Torrey, P., Kewley, L

    Rich, J. A., Torrey, P., Kewley, L. J., Dopita, M. A., & Rupke, D. S. N. 2012, ApJ, 753, 5, 1204.5520

    2012 arXiv

  107. [115]

    R., Wuyts, E., Gladders, M

    Rigby, J. R., Wuyts, E., Gladders, M. D., Sharon, K., & Becker, G. D. 2011, ApJ, 732, 59, 1102.2441

    2011 arXiv

  108. [116]

    W., Huntley, J

    Roberts, W. W., Huntley, J. M., & van Albada, G. D. 1979, ApJ, 233, 67

    1979

  109. [117]

    Robitaille, T. P. 2011, A&A, 536, A79, 1112.1071

    2011 arXiv

  110. [118]

    Roy, J.-R., & Walsh, J. R. 1997, MNRAS, 288, 715

    1997

  111. [119]

    F., & Haas, M

    Erickson, E. F., & Haas, M. R. 1994, ApJ, 420, 772

    1994

  112. [120]

    Rupke, D. S. N., Kewley, L. J., & Barnes, J. E. 2010a, ApJ, 710, L156, 1001.1728

    arXiv

  113. [121]

    Rupke, D. S. N., Kewley, L. J., & Chien, L.-H. 2010b, ApJ, 723, 1255, 1009.0761

    arXiv

  114. [122]

    Salpeter, E. E. 1955, ApJ, 121, 161

    1955

  115. [123]

    E., & Seaton, M

    Saraph, H. E., & Seaton, M. J. 1970, MNRAS, 148, 367

    1970

  116. [124]

    1992, A&AS, 96, 269

    Schaller, G., Schaerer, D., Meynet, G., & Maeder, A. 1992, A&AS, 96, 269

    1992

  117. [125]

    Schneider, N. et al. 2016, A&A, 591, A40, 1604.03967

    2016 arXiv

  118. [126]

    Scott, P., Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Bergemann, M., & Sauval, A. J. 2015a, A&A, 573, A26, 1405.0287

    arXiv

  119. [127]

    Scott, P. et al. 2015b, A&A, 573, A25, 1405.0279

    arXiv

  120. [128]

    A., & Dufour, R

    Shaw, R. A., & Dufour, R. J. 1995, PASP, 107, 896

    1995

  121. [129]

    Shields, G. A. 1990, ARA&A, 28, 525

    1990

  122. [130]

    2013a, ArXiv e-prints, 1307.4758

    Shirazi, M., Brinchmann, J., & Rahmati, A. 2013a, ArXiv e-prints, 1307.4758

    arXiv

  123. [131]

    2013b, ArXiv e-prints, 1306.6282

    Shirazi, M., Vegetti, S., Nesvadba, N., Allam, S., Brinchmann, J., & Tucker, D. 2013b, ArXiv e-prints, 1306.6282

    arXiv

  124. [132]

    A., Tommasin, S., & Busquet, G

    Malkan, M. A., Tommasin, S., & Busquet, G. 2015, ApJ, 799, 21, 1411.1294

    2015 arXiv

  125. [133]

    Spite, M. et al. 2005, A&A, 430, 655, astro-ph/0409536

    2005 arXiv

  126. [134]

    Sternberg, A., & Townes, C. H. 1991, ApJ, 373, 423

    1991

  127. [135]

    C., Benford, D

    Parshley, S. C., Benford, D. J., Staguhn, J. G., & Fiolet, N. 2010, ApJ, 724, 957, 1009.4216

    2010 arXiv

  128. [136]

    Stanghellini, L., & Kaler, J. B. 1989, ApJ, 343, 811 Stasi´ nska, G. 2002, in Revista Mexicana de Astronomia y Astrofisica Conference Series, 62–69

    1989

  129. [137]

    Steinacker, J., Baes, M., & Gordon, K. D. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 63, 1303.4998 Str¨ omgren, B. 1939, ApJ, 89, 526

    2013 arXiv

  130. [138]

    Sturm, E. et al. 2010, A&A, 518, L36, 1005.1511

    2010 arXiv

  131. [139]

    S., & Dopita, M

    Sutherland, R. S., & Dopita, M. A. 1993, ApJS, 88, 253

    1993

  132. [140]

    S., Hopkins, A

    Sutherland, R. S., Hopkins, A. M., & Blanc, G. A. 2018, ApJ, 856, 89, 1803.00740

    2018 arXiv

  133. [141]

    Tielens, A. G. G. M., & Hollenbach, D. 1985, ApJ, 291, 722

    1985

  134. [142]

    J., Kewley, L., & Hernquist, L

    Torrey, P., Cox, T. J., Kewley, L., & Hernquist, L. 2012, ApJ, 746, 108, 1107.0001

    2012 arXiv

  135. [143]

    Tremblin, P. et al. 2013, A&A, 560, A19, 1311.3664

    2013 arXiv

  136. [144]

    Valtchanov, I. et al. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 3473, 1105.3924

    2011 arXiv

  137. [145]

    P., Bisbas, T

    Walch, S., Whitworth, A. P., Bisbas, T. G., Hubber, D. A., & W¨ unsch, R. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 2794, 1109.3478

    2015 arXiv

  138. [146]

    Wang, W., Liu, X.-W., Zhang, Y., & Barlow, M. J. 2004, A&A, 427, 873, astro-ph/0408040

    2004 arXiv

  139. [147]

    Weedman, D. W. 1968, PASP, 80, 314

    1968

  140. [148]

    J., Swinbank, A

    Yuan, T.-T., Kewley, L. J., Swinbank, A. M., & Richard, J. 2012, ArXiv e-prints, 1209.3805

    2012 arXiv

  141. [149]

    Zhang, K. et al. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 3217, 1612.02000

    2017 arXiv

  142. [150]

    Zhao, Y. et al. 2016, ApJ, 819, 69, 1601.01404 46666 28 Kewley et al. T able 1 Theoretical flux ratios for our MAPPINGS v5.1 Pressure Models log log(q) log(O/H) [N IV] SiIII] C III] [Ne IV] [Al II] [O II] [Ar IV] [N I] [Cl III] [S II] [S III] [O III] [N II] (P k ) +12 λ1483 λ14...

    2016 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.