Interstellar dust along the line of sight of GX 3+1

2); (2) Anton Pannekoek Astronomical Institute; C.P. de Vries; D. Rogantini (1; E. Costantini; F. de Groot; H. Mutschke; I. Psaradaki; L.B.F.M. Waters ((1) SRON Netherlands Institute for Space Research; M. Mehdipour

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 137 references

Interstellar dust along the line of sight of GX 3+1

T0 review · 2 major / 5 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 The dust toward the X-ray binary GX 3+1 is best described as roughly 71% amorphous olivine, 16% crystalline fayalite, and 13% amorphous quartz.

desk verdict Careful two-edge X-ray dust study with genuinely new Mg K-edge lab data; the headline olivine fraction is plausible but depends on an unmodeled Si-edge residual and a partly circular Mg-edge calibration. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.00652 v1 pith:ELHZG3E7 submitted 2019-09-02 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.HEcond-mat.mtrl-sci

D. Rogantini (1 , 2) , E. Costantini , S.T. Zeegers , C.P. de Vries , M. Mehdipour , F. de Groot , H. Mutschke

show 6 more authors

I. Psaradaki L.B.F.M. Waters ((1) SRON Netherlands Institute for Space Research the Netherlands (2) Anton Pannekoek Astronomical Institute University of Amsterdam the Netherlands)

This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HEcond-mat.mtrl-sci

keywords interstellardustX-rayabsorptionfinestructuremagnesiumK-edgesiliconsilicateGX3+1depletionChandraHETG

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

This paper attempts to establish the composition and grain sizes of interstellar dust along the line of sight to the bright X-ray binary GX 3+1 by reading the dust's own X-ray absorption fingerprints. It builds extinction models from synchrotron measurements of fifteen mineral candidates and fits the magnesium and silicon K-edges simultaneously in Chandra spectra. The best-fitting mixture is about 71% amorphous olivine, 16% crystalline fayalite, and 13% amorphous quartz, with comparable contributions from standard and larger grain-size distributions. If correct, this line of sight is dominated by olivine-type silicates, and magnesium and silicon are almost entirely locked into dust grains, with fractional depletions of 0.89 and 0.94 while total abundances remain consistent with solar values.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is the X-ray absorption fine structure (XAFS) profile at the magnesium and silicon K-edges: each candidate mineral has a distinctive near-edge shape set by its local atomic configuration, crystallinity, and grain size. The paper constructs extinction cross sections by converting synchrotron fluorescence measurements into optical constants ($n$ and $k$), using the Kramers-Kronig relation for the real part, and applying anomalous diffraction theory with either the standard MRN or a large-grain size distribution. These cross sections are implemented in the amol component of the Spex spectral fitting program, which allows up to four dust species to be mixed, and the two edges are fitted simultaneously to avoid degeneracies between silicate classes.

What would settle it

A higher-resolution, higher-signal-to-noise spectrum across the silicon K-edge that resolves the 6.72–6.75 Å feature: if the feature is interstellar and its wavelength or strength changes with line of sight or Doppler velocity, the current dust mixture would need to be refit. A laboratory Mg K-edge measurement of amorphous fayalite would also directly test whether the crystalline fayalite fraction is inflated by the absence of that amorphous counterpart in the model set.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that simultaneous modelling of the Mg and Si K-edges of GX 3+1, using laboratory-measured X-ray extinction cross sections implemented in the Spex fitting code, breaks the degeneracies of single-edge fits and identifies the dust composition along this line of sight. The paper reports that the data prefer a mixture of amorphous olivine ($\sim71\%$), crystalline fayalite ($\sim16\%$), and amorphous quartz ($\sim13\%$), with comparable contributions from the standard MRN size distribution ($0.005{-}0.25\,\mu\mathrm{m}$) and a large-grain distribution ($0.05{-}0.5\,\mu\mathrm{m}$). The fit implies olivine stoichiometry with $(\mathrm{Mg}+\mathrm{Fe})/\mathrm{Si}\sim 2$, a crystalline fraction $\zeta_1 = 0.15\pm 0.03$, and fractional depletions $\delta_{\mathrm{Mg}}=0.89$ and $\delta_{\mathrm{Si}}=0.94$ with total abundances near solar. The authors present this as the first simultaneous two-edge dust analysis of a bright low-mass X-ray binary and caution that an uncharacterised residual at the very onset of the silicon K-edge, between 6.72 and 6.75 Å, leaves the composition partly open.

Load-bearing premise

The fitted dust mixture assumes that the unexplained absorption feature at the very onset of the silicon K-edge, between 6.72 and 6.75 Å, is not produced by interstellar matter and therefore does not bias the derived dust fractions and depletions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the mixture is right, the dust toward GX 3+1 is mostly olivine-type orthosilicates built on isolated SiO$_4$ tetrahedra, rather than pyroxene chains or pure silica, implying a cation-to-silicon ratio near 2.
Near-total depletion of magnesium and silicon ($\delta\approx0.89$ and $0.94$) with solar total abundances means nearly all of these elements is hidden in solid grains along this sight line, matching the high depletions expected in dense Galactic-plane material.
A crystalline fraction of about 15% is far above the few-percent upper limits inferred from infrared 10 and 18 $\mu$m bands, suggesting either that denser regions host more crystalline silicates than the diffuse medium or that the grains are poly-mineralic agglomerates with short-range crystalline order.
The comparable MRN and large-grain contributions (roughly 57% versus 43%) support a picture of two dust populations: small diffuse grains in spiral arms and larger grains associated with molecular material closer to the Galactic centre.

Reading between the lines

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

If the 6.72–6.75 Å silicon-edge feature is interstellar rather than instrumental, the fitted dust fractions and depletion values would need to be revised; future high-resolution X-ray missions could resolve this feature and directly test the mixture.
The same laboratory cross-section library could be applied to other bright low-mass X-ray binaries to map how silicate composition, crystallinity, and grain size vary across different Galactic environments, turning K-edge XAFS into a survey tool for dust properties.
A laboratory measurement of amorphous fayalite would likely lower the inferred crystalline fraction, since the current model set lacks that amorphous counterpart and the fit compensates with crystalline fayalite.
The apparent conflict between X-ray-derived crystallinity and infrared upper limits could be tested by observing a source whose dust layers are spatially separated, such as one with X-ray dust-scattering rings, and comparing the edge features from each layer.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

This is the most careful X-ray dust-edge analysis of a single LMXB I've seen, and it earns a serious referee even though the headline numbers have one real soft spot. What's new: twelve newly measured Mg K-edge extinction cross sections, posted on Zenodo, and the first simultaneous Mg+Si K-edge dust fit for GX 3+1. The fitting is transparent — AIC selection over 27,405 mixtures, simultaneous HEG/MEG fits, and a genuine attempt to rule out alternatives for the troublesome Si-edge feature. They also openly admit where their sample is incomplete, e.g. no amorphous counterpart to fayalite, which could bias the crystallinity upward.

The soft spot is the one they flag themselves: a >5σ, unmodeled complex of features at 6.72–6.75 Å, sitting exactly at the Si K-edge onset. They test neutral Si, ionized gas, extra Si-bearing dust, and a second red-shifted silicate edge, and none works. So an unidentified opacity source is missing from the very model that sets their Si dust fractions and depletions. That is a systematic, not statistical, uncertainty. It could trade against the crystalline fayalite and amorphous quartz columns and against gas-phase Si, so the 71% amorphous olivine and δSi = 0.94 are not yet on solid ground. A mask/refit check, or a positive identification of that residual, would settle it.

The Mg-edge calibration is also partly circular: they set the −2.54 eV shift by fitting the model to GX 3+1 itself (Appendix A). They cross-check against literature XANES of forsterite, so it is not a secret circularity, but the anchor is the science target. I'd call it a minor-to-moderate concern.

What holds up: the dust fractions are fitted, not assumed, and the depletion values agree with Jenkins (2009) and Dwek (2016). The paper does not oversell its conclusions; the limitations are stated in the text. So this is not a paper with a fatal flaw — it is a good paper with one unresolved residual that could bias the central claim.

For peer review: yes. Send it, but ask the authors to refit with the Si-edge region masked and to report how the dust mixture and depletions change. If they can show the result is robust, publish as is; if not, the systematic uncertainty needs to propagate into the error bars. Either way, it's a useful contribution for anyone working on X-ray dust absorption or interstellar depletions.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. Rogantini et al. present new synchrotron-measured Mg K-edge extinction cross sections for twelve dust compounds and combine them with previously published Si K-edge profiles to build a two-edge dust extinction model in SPEX. They apply this model to 213 ks of Chandra HETG/ACIS spectra of the LMXB GX 3+1, fitting HEG and MEG spectra simultaneously and selecting among 27,405 dust mixtures with the Akaike Information Criterion. The adopted model mixes MRN and larger-grain (LMRN) size distributions and yields a best-fitting dust composition of roughly 71% amorphous olivine, 16% crystalline fayalite, and 13% amorphous quartz, with Mg and Si fractional depletions of 0.89 and 0.94 and total abundances consistent with solar. The paper also searches for the origin of a residual at the Si K-edge onset, tests neutral and ionized gas absorption and alternative Si-bearing dust species, and discusses the resulting dust stoichiometry, crystallinity, and grain size. The central claims are the dominance of amorphous olivine and the near-total depletion of Mg and Si into dust along this line of sight.

Significance. If correct, the paper provides a new simultaneous Mg+Si K-edge diagnostic for interstellar dust and reports one of the first X-ray-based determinations of silicate composition and crystallinity toward a bulge LMXB. The analysis has notable strengths: the fitting is transparent and systematic (AIC model selection over the full mixture space, simultaneous HEG/MEG fits, explicit tests of ionized gas, neutral Si, and alternative dust species), and the laboratory cross sections are made publicly available. The central quantitative results are not hard-wired by construction; they emerge from the fit rather than being imposed by an assumed dust model. However, the robustness of the headline numbers is currently limited by two untreated systematic effects: a >5σ unmodeled residual at the Si K-edge onset and an Mg-edge energy calibration anchored to the same source. Both are addressable with masking/refit tests and an explicit calibration-uncertainty term, so the work is promising but not yet fully supported.

major comments (2)

[Section 4.1, Figs. 5 and 7] The best-fit model leaves an unmodeled residual complex at 6.72–6.75 Å, at the very onset of the Si K-edge, with ≳5σ significance. This is the wavelength range that most directly constrains the Si-bearing dust (especially fayalite and quartz) and the gas-phase Si column. The authors state that they are currently 'not able to characterise' these features, so the quoted uncertainties in Tables 3 and 4 are statistical only and exclude a systematic that could plausibly trade against the fitted dust fractions and δSi. I request a quantitative stability test: re-fit with the 6.72–6.75 Å interval masked (or with an empirical absorption component added), and report how the dust mixture, NSi, and δSi change. If the shift exceeds the quoted 1σ errors, the central claims in the abstract should be revised or presented with enlarged systematic errors; if the results are stable, that should be stated explicitly.
[Appendix A] The Mg K-edge energy shift of -2.54 eV is calibrated by fitting the same GX 3+1 data that are later used to derive the dust composition and depletions, with the amol systemic velocity zv left free and models selected by ΔAIC<2. This makes the Mg-edge energy scale and the derived Mg-bearing dust fractions mutually dependent. Although the value agrees with independent laboratory spectra (Wu et al. 2004; Trcera et al. 2009; Takahashi et al. 2018), the paper should quantify the sensitivity of the best-fit dust fractions and δMg to fixing zv (or to varying the shift within the laboratory uncertainty) and include that contribution in the error budget. As written, the statistical errors in Table 3 do not include this calibration uncertainty.

minor comments (5)

[Section 5] The value 'δSi = 0.94±0.6' should read 'δSi = 0.94±0.06' to match Table 4.
[Section 4.4] The phrase 'using several several low mass X-ray binaries' contains a duplicated word, and 'consistent to the range' should be 'consistent with the range'.
[Section 3.5] 'Aikake Information Criterion' should be 'Akaike Information Criterion'.
[Section 3.2] The wavelength range quoted for the HEG band, '~2.4–10.8 Å', appears inconsistent with the stated energy range 1.1–5.2 keV (which corresponds to ~2.4–11.3 Å); please check the conversion.
[Section 4.4 and Table 3] Because the laboratory sample set lacks an amorphous fayalite analogue, the identification of the 16% fayalite component as crystalline should be explicitly caveated in the abstract and conclusions, or the crystallinity ratio should be presented as an upper limit; the discussion in Section 4.4 is candid, but the Table 3 label 'c-fayalite' without a corresponding caveat may overstate the result.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Central dust-mixture fit is self-contained; only mild circularity from calibrating the Mg K-edge energy shift on the same GX 3+1 spectrum used for the science fit.

other [Section 2.2 and Appendix A (Mg K-edge shift calibration)]
"Finally, we shifted our measurements by 2.54 eV to lower energies since the undulator radiation of the synchrotron introduced a systematic shift in the monochromator. In Appendix A we describe how we determined the exact value of this energy shift. ... We chose to evaluate the energy shift calibrating our model on the spectrum of GX 3+1 presented in this paper in Section 2. We set the systematic velocity of the absorber (zv parameter in AMOL) as a free parameter and we run the fit of the magnesium K-edge using all the combination of minerals (see Equation 1)."

The -2.54 eV Mg K-edge energy shift is not an external laboratory calibration; it is obtained by fitting the systematic velocity parameter (zv) to the GX 3+1 Mg K-edge data themselves, and the same shifted laboratory models are then used in the science fit of that same spectrum. The Mg-edge energy scale is therefore tuned to the target by construction, so the good alignment of the Mg K-edge models with GX 3+1 is not an independent confirmation. This is a genuine in-sample calibration. It is, however, mild: the shift is common to all Mg-bearing dust species and does not by itself select the amorphous-olivine-rich mixture or the depletion values, which are set by the relative amplitudes of the fitted dust and gas columns.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is a forward-model fit: laboratory synchrotron spectra are converted to extinction cross sections, implemented in Spex/amol, and fitted to Chandra HETG data with dust and gas column densities free. The reported amorphous-olivine fraction (~71%), crystalline fayalite (~16%), amorphous quartz (~13%), and depletions delta_Mg = 0.89 and delta_Si = 0.94 are outputs of a C-statistic/AIC model search over combinations of independently measured compounds, not inputs. No uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work: the MRN/LMRN size distributions are stated assumptions tested against the data, and the Si K-edge cross sections from Zeegers et al. (2017, 2019) are laboratory measurements, not fitted results. The unmodeled 6.72-6.75 Angstrom Si K-edge residual is a systematic modeling risk, but it is acknowledged and not a circularity. The only in-sample element is the Mg K-edge energy-shift calibration in Appendix A, where zv is fitted to GX 3+1 and then applied to the same source's models; this aligns the Mg-edge energy scale by construction but does not determine the dust mixture or depletion fractions. Overall the derivation is largely self-contained, with one minor circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on lab-measured cross sections, assumed size distributions and discrete mineral compositions, the source continuum model, and one calibration parameter (the Mg edge shift) that is anchored to the science target. Most assumptions are standard in the field and are clearly stated, but the discrete compound library and the target-anchored energy calibration are the main unverified inputs.

free parameters (4)

Mg K-edge energy shift = -2.54 eV
Applied to all lab Mg K-edge spectra. Determined by fitting the systematic velocity (zv in amol) to the GX 3+1 spectrum (Appendix A), making the science target part of the calibration; cross-checked against literature XANES.
Dust species column densities N1-N4 = e.g., a-olivine MRN 3.6+/-0.3, a-olivine LMRN 2.3+/-0.3, c-fayalite LMRN 1.3+/-0.3, a-quartz MRN 1.1+/-0.2 (1e17 cm-2…
Primary fitted parameters in amol; define the dust mixture fractions that are the central results.
Gas-phase column densities (NO, NMg, NSi, NFe) = NO=0.8+/-0.1e19, NMg=0.7+/-0.3e17, NSi=0.6+/-0.5e17, NFe=0.2+2.0/-0.1e16 cm-2 (Table 3)
Fitted simultaneously with dust columns; used to compute depletions and total abundances.
Continuum normalizations (blackbody and power-law) = Per observation; e.g., Nbb around 2.3e13 cm2 keV, Npow around 28e44 ph s-1 keV-1 (Table 2)
Left free during dust fitting; can trade against edge depths and therefore affect the derived dust column densities.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The measured lab XAFS cross sections are representative of interstellar dust analogues.
The whole analysis maps synchrotron spectra of 15 minerals to cosmic dust; invoked throughout, especially Sections 2.1 and 4.3. If cosmic grains have different compositions or continuous Mg/Fe ratios, the derived fractions are biased.
domain assumption The dust along the line of sight is fully described by the discrete set of measured compounds with the assumed MRN and LMRN size distributions.
Section 3.4 fits mixtures of the 15 listed compounds only; the paper itself notes (Section 4.4) that missing amorphous counterparts, e.g., for fayalite, can bias the crystallinity ratio.
standard math Anomalous diffraction theory and Kramers-Kronig relations correctly convert lab transmittance to extinction cross sections for the relevant grain sizes.
Used in Section 2.3 following van de Hulst (1957) and Watts (2014); standard in this field.
domain assumption The X-ray continuum of GX 3+1 is correctly represented by a blackbody plus power law absorbed by neutral gas with the Spex hot model.
Section 3.3. If the continuum is mis-modeled, the measured edge depths and hence the derived depletions change.
standard math Solar abundances from Lodders (2010) are the appropriate reference for depletion and abundance ratios.
Used to convert fitted column densities into the reported depletion and abundance values (Tables 3 and 4).
domain assumption The neutral Mg and Si photoabsorption cross sections updated with FAC and COWAN resonance transitions are accurate enough for the gas absorption modeling.
Introduced in Sections 3.3 and 4.1; the unmodeled Si-edge residual is partly attributed to uncertainty in these cross sections, so the gas-side modeling is load-bearing.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Interstellar dust along the line of sight of GX 3+1." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ELHZG3E7

@misc{pith2026190900652,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Interstellar dust along the line of sight of GX 3+1},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ELHZG3E7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.00652}
}

abstract

Studying absorption and scattering of X-ray radiation by interstellar dust grains allows us to access the physical and chemical properties of cosmic grains even in the densest regions of the Galaxy. We aim at characterising the dust silicate population which presents clear absorption features in the energy band covered by the Chandra X-ray Observatory. Through these absorption features, in principle, it is possible to infer the size distribution, composition, and structure of silicate in the interstellar medium. In particular, in this work, we investigate the magnesium and silicon K-edges. By using newly acquired synchrotron measurements, we build X-ray extinction models for fifteen dust candidates. These models, adapted for astrophysical analysis, and implemented in the Spex spectral fitting program, are used to reproduce the dust absorption features observed in the spectrum of the bright low mass X-ray binary GX 3+1 which is used as a background source. With the simultaneous analysis of the two edges we test two different size distributions of dust: one corresponding to the standard Mathis-Rumpl-Nordsieck model and one considering larger grains ($n(a) \propto a_i^{-3.5}$ with $0.005<a_1<0.25$ and $0.05<a_2<0.5$, respectively, with $a$ the grain size). These distributions may be representative of the complex Galactic region towards this source. We find that up to $70\%$ of dust is constituted by amorphous olivine. We discuss the crystallinity of the cosmic dust found along this line of sight. Both magnesium and silicon are highly depleted into dust ($\delta_{Z} = 0.89\ \rm{and}\ 0.94$, respectively) while their total abundance does not depart from solar values.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.00652 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Representation of the data analysis for the forsterite Mg2SiO4. From top to bottom: (a) − Self absorption correction: in red solid line the synchrotron raw data and in blue dashed line the signal corrected with the FLUO tool. (b) − Transmission for a thin layer (τ = 0.5 µm): the measured edge with XAFS (in black) are normalised using the tabulates values from Henke et al. (1993). (c) − Optical constants: k is repr… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** The Mg K-edge model implemented in SPEX for three different chemical compounds: crystalline spinel (MgAl2O4), crystalline forsterite (Mg2SiO4), and amorphous enstatite (MgSiO3). The major peak of spinel in the post edge is shifted at higher energy with respect to the silicates. This is due to a different configuration of the atoms in the single unit cell. 1300 1350 1400 Energy [eV] −0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 Normalised Extin… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Normalised extinction cross section for forsterite using two different grain size distributions. The solid black line represents the standard MRN grain size ranging between 0.005 − 0.25 µm. The dashed red line delineates the larger grain size spanning between 0.05 − 0.5 µm. any discontinuities between the XAFS data and the predefined curve in Spex Zeegers et al. (2017). In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: The continuum of GX 3+1. HEG (light blue) and MEG (dark blue) data from seven datasets were used to fit the continuum. We stacked and binned the observations for display purpose only. The average fit of the seven data sets is shown with a red solid line. The model con…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Top panel: the magnesium and silicon K-edges of GX 3+1. The HEG and MEG data are respectively shown in light and dark grey. We do not consider MEG data for the Si K-edge because of the pile-up contamination. We fit the two edges using models with different grain size d…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Bar plot of the relative abundance for each dust species calculated considering AIC−selected models. Darker bars represent models with a LMRN size distribution instead lighter bars refer to MRN models. With red filled bars, we highlight the dust species with a constr…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Zoom-in of the silicon K-edge. We represent the best fit with a red solid line. In orange we show the model obtained by adding secondary Si-bearing dust candidates presented in the text to the best fit. The green dashed line represents the best fit adding the neutral …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

137 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages

[1]

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

ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...
[2]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....
[3]

1974, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19, 716

Akaike , H. 1974, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19, 716

1974
[4]

1998, Prediction and Entropy, ed

Akaike, H. 1998, Prediction and Entropy, ed. E. Parzen, K. Tanabe, & G. Kitagawa (New York, NY: Springer New York), 387--410

1998
[5]

2016, Science, 352, 312

Altobelli , N., Postberg , F., Fiege , K., et al. 2016, Science, 352, 312

2016
[6]

& Grevesse , N

Anders , E. & Grevesse , N. 1989, , 53, 197

1989
[7]

1993, , 45, 801

Asai , K., Dotani , T., Nagase , F., et al. 1993, , 45, 801

1993
[8]

Bania , T. M. 1977, , 216, 381

1977

Show all 137 references

[9]

Bania , T. M. 1980, , 242, 95

1980
[10]

Benjamin , R. A. 2008, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 387, Massive Star Formation: Observations Confront Theory, ed. H. Beuther , H. Linz , & T. Henning , 375

2008
[11]

A., Eissner , W

Berrington , K. A., Eissner , W. B., & Norrington , P. H. 1995, Computer Physics Communications, 92, 290

1995
[12]

Bilalbegovi \'c , G., Maksimovi \'c , A., & Valencic , L. A. 2018, , 476, 5358

2018
[13]

Blommaert , J. A. D. L., de Vries , B. L., Waters , L. B. F. M., et al. 2014, , 565, A109

2014
[14]

T., Chubb , T

Bowyer , S., Byram , E. T., Chubb , T. A., & Friedman , H. 1965, Science, 147, 394

1965
[15]

2010, Introduction to XAFS (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press)

Bunker , G. 2010, Introduction to XAFS (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press)

2010
[16]

Burnham, K. P. & Anderson, D. R. 2002, Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach , 2nd edn. (Springer), 1--488

2002
[17]

R., Davis , J

Canizares , C. R., Davis , J. E., Dewey , D., et al. 2005, , 117, 1144

2005
[18]

1979, , 228, 939

Cash , W. 1979, , 228, 939

1979
[19]

1999, Journal of Applied Physics, 86, 5609

Chang, Y., Hsieh, H.-H., Pong, W.-F., et al. 1999, Journal of Applied Physics, 86, 5609

1999
[20]

L., Mundy , L

Chapman , N. L., Mundy , L. G., Lai , S.-P., & Evans , II, N. J. 2009, , 690, 496

2009
[21]

2006, , 449, L5

Chenevez , J., Falanga , M., Brandt , S., et al. 2006, , 449, L5

2006
[22]

P., Sanders , D

Clemens , D. P., Sanders , D. B., & Scoville , N. Z. 1988, , 327, 139

1988
[23]

Corrales , L. R. & Paerels , F. 2015, , 453, 1121

2015
[24]

& de Vries , C

Costantini , E. & de Vries , C. P. 2013, , 84, 592

2013
[25]

S., et al

Costantini , E., Pinto , C., Kaastra , J. S., et al. 2012, , 539, A32

2012
[26]

T., Rogantini , D., et al

Costantini , E., Zeegers , S. T., Rogantini , D., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1906.08653

2019
[27]

1995, The Biological Chemistry of Magnesium (Wiley)

Cowan, J. 1995, The Biological Chemistry of Magnesium (Wiley)

1995
[28]

Cowan , R. D. 1981, The theory of atomic structure and spectra

1981
[29]

Dame , T. M. & Thaddeus , P. 2008, , 683, L143

2008
[30]

Kronig, R

de L. Kronig, R. 1926, J. Opt. Soc. Am., 12, 547

1926
[31]

S., Tamura , T., et al

de Plaa , J., Kaastra , J. S., Tamura , T., et al. 2004, , 423, 49

2004
[32]

R., in't Zand , J

den Hartog , P. R., in't Zand , J. J. M., Kuulkers , E., et al. 2003, , 400, 633

2003
[33]

Draine , B. T. 2003, , 598, 1026

2003
[34]

2016, , 825, 136

Dwek , E. 2016, , 825, 136

2016
[35]

Ebisawa , K., Bourban , G., Bodaghee , A., Mowlavi , N., & Courvoisier , T. J.-L. 2003, , 411, L59

2003
[36]

2000, in ESA Special Publication, Vol

Fabian , D., J \"a ger , C., Henning , T., Dorschne , J., & Mutschke , H. 2000, in ESA Special Publication, Vol. 456, ISO Beyond the Peaks: The 2nd ISO Workshop on Analytical Spectroscopy, ed. A. Salama , M. F. Kessler , K. Leech , & B. Schulz , 347

2000
[37]

2006, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B, 246, 269

Flank , A.-M., Cauchon , G., Lagarde , P., et al. 2006, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B, 246, 269

2006
[38]

C., Allen , G

Fruscione , A., McDowell , J. C., Allen , G. E., et al. 2006, in , Vol. 6270, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, 62701V

2006
[39]

2017, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 213, 457

Fukushi, K., Suzuki, Y., Kawano, J., et al. 2017, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 213, 457

2017
[40]

W., Bautista , M

Gorczyca , T. W., Bautista , M. A., Hasoglu , M. F., et al. 2013, , 779, 78

2013
[41]

Gu, M. F. 2008, Canadian Journal of Physics, 86, 675

2008
[42]

Hasoglu , M. F. & Gorczyca , T. W. 2018, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 515, Workshop on Astrophysical Opacities, 275

2018
[43]

F., Abdel-Naby , S

Haso g lu , M. F., Abdel-Naby , S. A., Gatuzz , E., et al. 2014, , 214, 8

2014
[44]

& Woosley , S

Heger , A. & Woosley , S. E. 2010, , 724, 341

2010
[45]

L., Gullikson , E

Henke , B. L., Gullikson , E. M., & Davis , J. C. 1993, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, 54, 181

1993
[46]

2010, , 48, 21

Henning , T. 2010, , 48, 21

2010
[47]

2012, , 422, 1263

Hirashita , H. 2012, , 422, 1263

2012
[48]

& Draine , B

Hoffman , J. & Draine , B. T. 2016, , 817, 139

2016
[49]

P., Mitschang , A., Dewey , D., et al

Huenemoerder , D. P., Mitschang , A., Dewey , D., et al. 2011, , 141, 129

2011
[50]

M., Rathborne , J

Jackson , J. M., Rathborne , J. M., Shah , R. Y., et al. 2006, , 163, 145

2006
[51]

2003, , 408, 193

J \"a ger , C., Dorschner , J., Mutschke , H., Posch , T., & Henning , T. 2003, , 408, 193

2003
[52]

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

2009
[53]

Jones , A. P. 2000, , 105, 10257

2000
[54]

Jones, A. P. 2007, European Journal of Mineralogy, 19, 771

2007
[55]

P., Fanciullo , L., K \"o hler , M., et al

Jones , A. P., Fanciullo , L., K \"o hler , M., et al. 2013, , 558, A62

2013
[56]

Kaastra , J. S. & Barr , P. 1989, , 226, 59

1989
[57]

S., Mewe , R., & Nieuwenhuijzen , H

Kaastra , J. S., Mewe , R., & Nieuwenhuijzen , H. 1996, in UV and X-ray Spectroscopy of Astrophysical and Laboratory Plasmas, ed. K. Yamashita & T. Watanabe , 411--414

1996
[58]

S., Raassen, A

Kaastra, J. S., Raassen, A. J. J., de Plaa, J., & Gu, L. 2017, SPEX X-ray spectral fitting package

2017
[59]

J., & Tielens , A

Kemper , F., Vriend , W. J., & Tielens , A. G. G. M. 2004, , 609, 826

2004
[60]

& Martin , P

Kim , S.-H. & Martin , P. G. 1995, , 444, 293

1995
[61]

& Bunsen, R

Kirchhoff, G. & Bunsen, R. 1860, Annalen der Physik, 186, 161
[62]

2014, , 565, L9

K \"o hler , M., Jones , A., & Ysard , N. 2014, , 565, L9

2014
[63]

Kramers , H. A. 1927, Atti Cong. Intern. Fisica (Transactions of Volta Centenary Congress) Como, 2, 545

1927
[64]

2002, , 383, L5

Kuulkers , E. 2002, , 383, L5

2002
[65]

& van der Klis , M

Kuulkers , E. & van der Klis , M. 2000, , 356, L45

2000
[66]

C., Xiang , J., Ravel , B., Kortright , J., & Flanagan , K

Lee , J. C., Xiang , J., Ravel , B., Kortright , J., & Flanagan , K. 2009, , 702, 970

2009
[67]

2014, , 572, A20

Lef \`e vre , C., Pagani , L., Juvela , M., et al. 2014, , 572, A20

2014
[68]

& Draine , B

Li , A. & Draine , B. T. 2001, , 554, 778

2001
[69]

& Draine , B

Li , A. & Draine , B. T. 2002, , 564, 803

2002
[70]

P., Zhao , G., & Li , A

Li , M. P., Zhao , G., & Li , A. 2007, , 382, L26

2007
[71]

Liddle , A. R. 2007, , 377, L74

2007
[72]

Liszt , H. S. 2008, , 486, 467

2008
[73]

2010, Astrophysics and Space Science Proceedings, 16, 379

Lodders , K. 2010, Astrophysics and Space Science Proceedings, 16, 379

2010
[74]

2003, Astronomische Nachrichten Supplement, 324, 337

Lutovinov , A., Grebenev , S., Molkov , S., & Sunyaev , R. 2003, Astronomische Nachrichten Supplement, 324, 337

2003
[75]

I., Paizis , A., Farinelli , R., et al

Mainardi , L. I., Paizis , A., Farinelli , R., et al. 2010, , 512, A57

2010
[76]

1983, , 267, 310

Makishima , K., Mitsuda , K., Inoue , H., et al. 1983, , 267, 310

1983
[77]

C., Hines , D

Markwick-Kemper , F., Gallagher , S. C., Hines , D. C., & Bouwman , J. 2007, , 668, L107

2007
[78]

J., Fux , R., Robin , A

Marshall , D. J., Fux , R., Robin , A. C., & Reyl \'e , C. 2008, , 477, L21

2008
[79]

2018, Mon

Mart \' nez-Solaeche, G., Karakci, A., & Delabrouille, J. 2018, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 476, 1310

2018
[80]

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

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

1977
[81]

& Costantini , E

Mehdipour , M. & Costantini , E. 2018, ArXiv e-prints [ [arXiv] 1808.04628 ]

2018 arXiv
[82]

M., Fabian , A

Miller , J. M., Fabian , A. C., Wijnands , R., et al. 2002, , 578, 348

2002
[83]

Min , M., Waters , L. B. F. M., de Koter , A., et al. 2007, , 462, 667

2007
[84]

1984, , 36, 741

Mitsuda , K., Inoue , H., Koyama , K., et al. 1984, , 36, 741

1984
[85]

1998, , 333, 188

Mutschke , H., Begemann , B., Dorschner , J., et al. 1998, , 333, 188

1998
[86]

2009, , 504, 875

Mutschke , H., Min , M., & Tamanai , A. 2009, , 504, 875

2009
[87]

2004, Consortium for Advanced Radiation Sources, University of Chicago (USA)[http://xafs

Newville, M. 2004, Consortium for Advanced Radiation Sources, University of Chicago (USA)[http://xafs. org], 78

2004
[88]

Oosterbroek , T., Barret , D., Guainazzi , M., & Ford , E. C. 2001, , 366, 138

2001
[89]

Ossenkopf , V., Henning , T., & Mathis , J. S. 1992, , 261, 567

1992
[90]

2010, Science, 329, 1622

Pagani , L., Steinacker , J., Bacmann , A., Stutz , A., & Henning , T. 2010, Science, 329, 1622

2010
[91]

2017, Physical Geology, Second Adapted Edition (CC BY 4.0 International License)

Panchuk , K. 2017, Physical Geology, Second Adapted Edition (CC BY 4.0 International License)

2017
[92]

S., Costantini , E., & de Vries , C

Pinto , C., Kaastra , J. S., Costantini , E., & de Vries , C. 2013, , 551, A25

2013
[93]

S., Costantini , E., & Verbunt , F

Pinto , C., Kaastra , J. S., Costantini , E., & Verbunt , F. 2010, , 521, A79

2010
[94]

2015, , 450, 2016

Pintore , F., Di Salvo , T., Bozzo , E., et al. 2015, , 450, 2016

2015
[95]

2012, , 542, L27

Piraino , S., Santangelo , A., Kaaret , P., et al. 2012, , 542, L27

2012
[96]

A., Connors , A., Kashyap , V

Protassov , R., van Dyk , D. A., Connors , A., Kashyap , V. L., & Siemiginowska , A. 2002, , 571, 545

2002
[97]

2017, ArXiv e-prints [ [arXiv] 1704.02493 ]

Ranalli , P., Hobbs , D., & Lindegren , L. 2017, ArXiv e-prints [ [arXiv] 1704.02493 ]

2017 arXiv
[98]

& Newville, M

Ravel, B. & Newville, M. 2005, Journal of Synchrotron Radiation, 12, 537

2005
[99]

T., et al

Rogantini , D., Costantini , E., Zeegers , S. T., et al. 2018, , 609, A22

2018
[100]

B., Lightman , A

Rybicki , G. B., Lightman , A. P., & Paul , H. G. 1986, Astronomische Nachrichten, 307, 170

1986
[101]

Savage , B. D. & Sembach , K. R. 1996, , 34, 279

1996
[102]

S., Corrales , L., & Canizares , C

Schulz , N. S., Corrales , L., & Canizares , C. R. 2016, in AAS/High Energy Astrophysics Division, Vol. 15, AAS/High Energy Astrophysics Division, 402.05

2016
[103]

& Titarchuk , L

Seifina , E. & Titarchuk , L. 2012, , 747, 99

2012
[104]

Shakura , N. I. 1973, , 16, 756

1973
[105]

Shakura , N. I. & Sunyaev , R. A. 1973, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 55, X- and Gamma-Ray Astronomy, ed. H. Bradt & R. Giacconi , 155

1973
[106]

K., Pitman , K., & Hofmeister , A

Speck , A. K., Pitman , K., & Hofmeister , A. 2015, IAU General Assembly, 22, 2257874

2015
[107]

K., Whittington , A

Speck , A. K., Whittington , A. G., & Hofmeister , A. M. 2011, , 740, 93

2011
[108]

Stark , A. A. & Bania , T. M. 1986, , 306, L17

1986
[109]

C., Kaastra , J

Steenbrugge , K. C., Kaastra , J. S., Crenshaw , D. M., et al. 2005, , 434, 569

2005
[110]

C., Kaastra , J

Steenbrugge , K. C., Kaastra , J. S., de Vries , C. P., & Edelson , R. 2003, , 402, 477

2003
[111]

A., Newville , M., Ravel , B., Yacoby , Y., & Haskel , D

Stern , E. A., Newville , M., Ravel , B., Yacoby , Y., & Haskel , D. 1995, Physica B Condensed Matter, 208, 117

1995
[112]

2018, AIP Advances, 8, 025107

Takahashi , O., Tamenori , Y., Suenaga , T., et al. 2018, AIP Advances, 8, 025107

2018
[113]

K., Yamamoto , T., & Kimura , H

Tanaka , K. K., Yamamoto , T., & Kimura , H. 2010, , 717, 586

2010
[114]

Tielens , A. G. G. M., Waters , L. B. F. M., Molster , F. J., & Justtanont , K. 1998, , 255, 415

1998
[115]

1994, , 434, 570

Titarchuk , L. 1994, , 434, 570

1994
[116]

2009, Physics and Chemistry of Minerals, 36, 241

Trcera , N., Cabaret , D., Rossano , S., et al. 2009, Physics and Chemistry of Minerals, 36, 241

2009
[117]

1992, Phys

Tr\"oger, L., Arvanitis, D., Baberschke, K., et al. 1992, Phys. Rev. B, 46, 3283

1992
[118]

S., Figura , C

Urquhart , J. S., Figura , C. C., Moore , T. J. T., et al. 2014, , 437, 1791

2014
[119]

Valencic , L. A. & Smith , R. K. 2013, , 770, 22

2013
[120]

van de Hulst , H. C. 1957, Light Scattering by Small Particles

1957
[121]

K., & Linares , M

van den Berg , M., Homan , J., Fridriksson , J. K., & Linares , M. 2014, , 793, 128

2014
[122]

van den Hoek , L. B. & Groenewegen , M. A. T. 1997, , 123, 305

1997
[123]

W., & Oort , J

van Woerden , H., Rougoor , G. W., & Oort , J. H. 1957, Academie des Sciences Paris Comptes Rendus, 244, 1691

1957
[124]

& Petropoulou , M

Vasilopoulos , G. & Petropoulou , M. 2016, , 455, 4426

2016
[125]

A., Verner , E

Verner , D. A., Verner , E. M., & Ferland , G. J. 1996, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, 64, 1

1996
[126]

Voshchinnikov , N. V. & Henning , T. 2008, , 483, L9

2008
[127]

2014, Optics Express, 22, 23628

Watts , B. 2014, Optics Express, 22, 23628

2014
[128]

Weingartner , J. C. & Draine , B. T. 2001, , 548, 296

2001
[129]

2002, Dust in the Galactic Environment, 2nd Edition, Series in Astronomy and Astrophysics (Taylor & Francis)

Whittet, D. 2002, Dust in the Galactic Environment, 2nd Edition, Series in Astronomy and Astrophysics (Taylor & Francis)

2002
[130]

Whittet , D. C. B., Duley , W. W., & Martin , P. G. 1990, , 244, 427

1990
[131]

N., Gordon , K

Witt , A. N., Gordon , K. D., & Furton , D. G. 1998, , 501, L111

1998
[132]

Y., Mottana , A., Marcelli , A., et al

Wu , Z. Y., Mottana , A., Marcelli , A., et al. 2004, , 69, 104106

2004
[133]

Yamamoto, T., Chigai, T., Kimura, H., & Tanaka, K. K. 2010, Earth, Planets and Space, 62, 23

2010
[134]

T., Costantini , E., de Vries , C

Zeegers , S. T., Costantini , E., de Vries , C. P., et al. 2017, , 599, A117

2017
[135]

T., Costantini , E., Rogantini , D., et al

Zeegers , S. T., Costantini , E., Rogantini , D., et al. 2019, , 627, A16

2019
[136]

R., Hoppe , P., et al

Zinner , E., Nittler , L. R., Hoppe , P., et al. 2005, , 69, 4149

2005
[137]

Zubko , V., Dwek , E., & Arendt , R. G. 2004, , 152, 211

2004

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

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

ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

[2] [2]

write newline

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

[3] [3]

1974, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19, 716

Akaike , H. 1974, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19, 716

1974

[4] [4]

1998, Prediction and Entropy, ed

Akaike, H. 1998, Prediction and Entropy, ed. E. Parzen, K. Tanabe, & G. Kitagawa (New York, NY: Springer New York), 387--410

1998

[5] [5]

2016, Science, 352, 312

Altobelli , N., Postberg , F., Fiege , K., et al. 2016, Science, 352, 312

2016

[6] [6]

& Grevesse , N

Anders , E. & Grevesse , N. 1989, , 53, 197

1989

[7] [7]

1993, , 45, 801

Asai , K., Dotani , T., Nagase , F., et al. 1993, , 45, 801

1993

[8] [8]

Bania , T. M. 1977, , 216, 381

1977