Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Investigating chemical variations between interstellar gas clouds in the Solar neighbourhood

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Gas clouds along a single sightline differ in dust depletion by up to a factor of 15, and the most depleted cloud often holds most of the hydrogen and is likely super-solar.

desk verdict Component-level depletion diversity is a real result, but the metallicity bounds are overinterpreted and rest on a post-hoc selection plus an untested depletion-sequence assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.18986 v2 pith:UPXXIHTD submitted 2024-12-25 astro-ph.GA

T. Ramburuth-Hurt , A. De Cia , J.-K. Krogager , C. Ledoux , E. Jenkins , A. J. Fox , C. Konstantopoulou , A. Velichko
show 1 more author
L. Dalla Pola
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords interstellarmediumdustdepletionmetallicityabsorption-linespectroscopygascomponentsMilkyWayhydrogenfractionUV
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 tries to establish that full line-of-sight chemical analyses of the interstellar medium average over genuinely distinct gas clouds, hiding a much larger diversity in dust depletion and metallicity. Using high-resolution UV spectra toward eight nearby O/B stars, the authors decompose each sightline into velocity components and fit 'metal patterns' to measure the depletion strength of each cloud. They find depletions up to [Zn/Fe] = 2.03 dex and intra-sightline ranges up to 1.19 dex, higher than any Milky Way sightline average previously reported. A simulation that redistributes the total hydrogen among components constrains possible metallicities and shows that in five of eight sightlines the most depleted cloud holds most of the hydrogen gas and likely has super-solar metallicity. If this is right, the non-linear abundance patterns seen in integrated sightlines are a superposition of chemically distinct clouds rather than a single well-mixed medium.

What carries the argument

The central object is the 'metal pattern' (also called depletion pattern), built from the relative-method depletion sequences: for each component i, plot yi = log N(X)i − log N(X)⊙ + 12 − A2X against the refractory index B2X; a linear fit yields the slope [Zn/Fe]fit,i (depletion strength) and the intercept ai = [M/H]i + log N(H)i. Because individual hydrogen column densities are not measurable (the Lyman-α line is damped and saturated), the intercept is degenerate between metallicity and hydrogen content; the paper breaks this degeneracy by enumerating all integer partitions of 100% into m gas fractions and computing the resulting metallicities [M/H]i = ai − log(fi × N(H)tot), keeping realizations that satisfy a physically motivated 0.5 dex metallicity ceiling. This machinery converts an unobservable per-cloud hydrogen distribution into a bounded set of possible per-cloud metallicities, and the fitted intercepts also quantify dust depletion per cloud without any metallicity assumption.

What would settle it

Compare metal-pattern slopes for individual high-depletion components against an independent per-cloud measure of depletion, using sightlines where 21-cm absorption or interferometric H I gives hydrogen column densities for each component, and check whether the derived [Zn/Fe]fit,i matches the observed component abundances. Alternatively, test the linearity of metal patterns on a well-resolved high-depletion sightline like HD 62542: if the pattern for a single component with known H I deviates from a line, the transfer of the relative method to components fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper shows that the level of dust depletion varies strongly between individual gas components along a line of sight, up to a factor of 15 (1.19 dex), and that individual components can reach depletion levels well above the maximum reported for integrated Milky Way sightlines: [Zn/Fe]fit = 2.03 ± 0.13 dex for group 3 in χ Oph, compared with 1.32 dex from De Cia et al. (2021). Using simulations of hydrogen gas fraction distributions, the authors further show that the most highly depleted component often holds the majority of the hydrogen gas and is likely super-solar, for example χ Oph group 3 with [M/H] ≥ 0.29 ± 0.21 dex and f3 = 54–88%. They conclude that full line-of-sight analyses wash out the diversity of chemical states along a sightline, and that component-by-component metal-pattern analysis is needed to recover the true chemical structure of the interstellar medium.

Load-bearing premise

The depletion sequences calibrated on full lines of sight (Eq. 1, Table 3, from Konstantopoulou et al. 2022) are assumed to hold for individual gas components, including at very high depletion levels; the paper itself flags that this calibration did not include Milky Way sightlines or highly depleted systems, and that individual components (e.g., toward HD 62542) may depart from the general trends, which would bias the derived [Zn/Fe]fit,i values and the y-intercepts used throughout the metallicity simulation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Integrated sightline depletion and metallicity measurements systematically underestimate the peak dust depletion and the chemical diversity present in the interstellar medium.
  • The most depleted cloud along a sightline often contains the majority of the hydrogen and is super-solar, so mixing such a cloud with lower-depletion gas explains the volatile upturns in integrated abundance patterns.
  • Component-by-component metal patterns can constrain individual cloud metallicities to within ~0.1–0.4 dex even though per-cloud H I is unmeasurable.
  • Lines of sight with two components (HD 110432, HD 206267) can have zero minimum metallicity difference, but moving only ~10% of the gas between components raises the difference to ~0.6 dex, showing that small hydrogen redistributions change the inferred chemical structure.
  • The simulation method is validated on a synthetic SMC+MW sightline, recovering a 0.6 dex metallicity difference for 5 of 4865 most-likely realizations and reproducing the SMC cloud's properties.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If individual clouds can reach [Zn/Fe] ~2 dex, dust-to-gas ratios in the warm neutral medium are far more heterogeneous than integrated measurements suggest; dust maps and extinction-based gas diagnostics that assume a single depletion factor per sightline may miss such clouds.
  • The same hydrogen-redistribution technique could be applied to extragalactic sightlines (e.g., DLAs, Magellanic Clouds) where only integrated spectra exist, placing upper bounds on sub-sightline metallicity dispersion that cannot be directly observed.
  • The pattern that the most depleted cloud is also the most hydrogen-rich and super-solar hints at a physical picture of metal-rich dusty clouds embedded in lower-metallicity gas; checking whether this correlates with cloud age or pressure could connect to interstellar medium lifecycle models.
  • A direct test would use sightlines with well-separated clouds and independent distance or kinematic constraints to see whether the minimum-metallicity-difference realization matches the actual boundaries of physically distinct clouds.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies individual gas components along eight Milky Way sightlines using high-resolution HST/STIS spectra supplemented with very-high-resolution optical data. It applies the relative dust-depletion method of Konstantopoulou et al. (2022) to components and reports depletion factors up to [Zn/Fe]fit ≈ 2.03 and intra-sightline ranges up to 1.19 dex, comparing these with full-sightline values. Because H I cannot be decomposed into components, the paper uses simulations of hydrogen gas fractions to bound component metallicities, selecting the realization with the minimum metallicity spread under an imposed [M/H] ≤ 0.5 dex cap. The main conclusions are that individual clouds can reach depletion levels well above full-sightline averages and that full-sightline analyses wash out chemical diversity.

Significance. If the depletion measurements are correct, the results would demonstrate that Milky Way interstellar clouds reach depletion levels far beyond those seen in integrated sightlines, which is important for interpreting relative-method abundance patterns in extragalactic sightlines. The paper's strengths are the high-quality data, careful component grouping based on very-high-resolution spectra, and the public tabulation of column densities and fits, which support reproducibility. The simulation framework for component metallicities is novel but, as discussed below, its results are strongly shaped by the adopted selection rules, so the detailed metallicity conclusions should be treated with caution.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2, Eq. (1)] The relative-method coefficients A2X and B2X are calibrated on full sightlines that do not include Milky Way lines of sight or high-depletion systems, as the authors themselves note. Applying Eq. (1) to individual components at [Zn/Fe]fit ≈ 2.0 is therefore an extrapolation beyond the validated range of the sequence. The authors argue in Section 4.1 that the lack of significant deviations from linear metal patterns supports the application, but linearity of a pattern only shows that each metal is offset by a constant per component; it does not establish that the slope of the pattern equals the B2X scale of the full-sightline calibration. A component with a different depletion pattern (e.g., altered Fe/Ti or Zn/Fe ratios) would yield biased [Zn/Fe]fit,i values, biasing the claimed factor-of-15 intra-sightline spread and the comparison with literature sightlines. The authors should at least propagate this systematic uncertainty into the reported depletion values, or validate the sequences on individual components using a sightline with known component properties (such as HD 62542, which they cite).
  2. [Section 4.1, Table 4, Fig. 2, Conclusions] The headline value [Zn/Fe]fit = 2.03 is quoted with inconsistent uncertainties: ±0.03 in Section 4.1 and in Conclusion 1, but ±0.13 in Table 4 and Fig. 2. The conversion to F* is also inconsistent (1.5 in Section 4.1, 1.30 in Conclusion 1; applying the relation F* = 1.05[Zn/Fe]fit − 0.86 given in Section 3.2 gives 1.27). These discrepancies must be reconciled; the quoted uncertainty on a headline claim should be the fit uncertainty from Table 4 unless a different definition is explicitly stated.
  3. [Sections 3.3, 4.2, 4.3, Eq. (6)-(8)] The 'minimum metallicity difference' is the minimum over all equiprobable hydrogen gas-fraction realizations, so the statements in Conclusion 6 that the minimum variation is <0.15 dex for all targets except θ1 Ori C are selected outcomes, not measurements. The additional cap [M/H] ≤ 0.5 dex (Section 4.2) restricts the parameter space and can force the minimum-difference realization to place all components at super-Solar metallicity, as seen for χ Oph in Table 6. The z-test of Eq. (8) therefore tests a property of the chosen realization, not a hypothesis about the sightline. The authors should consistently present these results as bounds under the adopted assumptions, not as empirical constraints.
  4. [Appendix B] The validation test using an SMC component recovers the input metallicity difference of >0.6 dex in only 5 of 4865 allowed realizations (about 0.1%). The text states this 'confirms' that the method distinguishes the SMC from the Milky Way, but a 0.1% recovery rate means the simulation does not uniquely or even preferentially identify the correct realization. The authors should report this fraction explicitly and discuss why, despite this, the minimum-difference analysis is informative; otherwise the claim that the method 'recovers' the metallicity difference is misleading.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 3.2] The sentence 'do do not form dust so easily' contains a duplicated word; it should read 'do not form dust so easily'.
  2. [Section 3.3] The formula for the number of combinations is misprinted as 99!/((m-1)!100!); the correct expression is (100-1)!/((m-1)!(100-m)!), although the numerical values given for m = 2, 3, 4 are correct.
  3. [Section 4.2.4 and Conclusion 5] The χ Oph discussion refers to '[Zn/Fe]fit,4 = 2.03' and '[M/H]4 ≳ 0.3', but Table 4 lists this value for group 3; the group numbering is inconsistent.
  4. [Section 5, Conclusion 5] The value [Zn/Fe]fit,2 = 1.52 ± 0.25 for θ1 Ori C does not match Table 4, which gives 1.46 ± 0.20 for group 2.
  5. [Abstract and Section 4.3] The phrase 'determine individual metallicities to accuracies' should be phrased as 'constrain individual metallicities to intervals of width', since the simulation provides ranges, not unique measurements.
  6. [Appendix E] The label 'most-likely realisations' is misleading because all realizations are equally likely; 'allowed realisations' would be more accurate.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The majority-hydrogen result is the selected minimum-metallicity-spread scenario restated, not an independent prediction.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.3 (Eq. 6), Section 4.2 (Table 5), Conclusions item 4]
    "To investigate the minimum possible range in metallicity along each line of sight, we compute the difference between the maximum and minimum metallicity for each realisation, and extract the realisation that produces the minimum difference. ... In five lines of sight (θ1 Ori C, χ Oph, HD 154368, κ Aql, HD 207198), we find that the component with the highest [Zn/Fe]fit,i holds the majority of the hydrogen gas, and also likley has super-Solar metallicity."

    Eq. (6), [M/H]i = ai − log(fi Ntot), makes the selected realization's metallicities equal by construction: minimizing max[M/H]i − min[M/H]i drives ai − log(fi Ntot) to a common value, hence fi ∝ 10^ai. The component with the largest intercept ai must therefore receive the largest hydrogen fraction. The 'finding' that in five sightlines the highest-depletion component holds the majority of the hydrogen (Table 5, Conclusions item 4) is this algebraic consequence of the selection rule combined with the empirical fact that in those sightlines the highest-depletion component also has the largest ai; it is not a robust prediction. The 'likely super-Solar' values likewise follow from the imposed cap [M/H] ≤ 0.5 dex, not from independent measurement.

full rationale

The paper's component depletion measurements are largely self-contained: [Zn/Fe]fit,i is a slope fitted to each component's own metal pattern (Eq. 3) using refractory indices B2X from Konstantopoulou et al. (2022), and the comparison with Milky Way sightlines is anchored to published values. I therefore do not count the B2X calibration or the Ramburuth-Hurt et al. (2023) precedent as circular: Section 3.2 explicitly concedes that the calibration was not tested for Milky Way, high-depletion, or component-level data, and names HD 62542 as a possible departure, which is a correctness risk but an honest external-citation limitation rather than a definitional reduction. The circularity is concentrated in the metallicity-simulation claims: the 'minimum metallicity difference' realization is selected by minimizing the metallicity spread, and from Eq. (6) that selection forces the hydrogen fractions to be proportional to 10^{a_i}, so the majority-hydrogen result in Table 5 and Conclusions item 4 is a restatement of the selection criterion combined with the a_i ordering, not an independent simulation outcome. The abstract's headline that full line-of-sight analyses wash out diversity is supported by the independently fitted component depletion ranges, so the paper is only partially circular. Additional internal inconsistencies (F* quoted as 1.5 in Sec. 4.1 vs 1.30 in Conclusions, and [Zn/Fe]fit = 2.03 ± 0.03 vs ±0.13) do not affect the circularity score but do undercut the stability of the headline number. On balance, the central metallicity-oriented conclusion reduces to the paper's own selection rule, yielding a score of 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central depletion result rests on calibrated depletion sequences and a common velocity structure assumption. The metallicity part rests primarily on the imposed [M/H] <= 0.5 dex cap and the flat prior over hydrogen gas fractions; both are modelling choices rather than measured quantities. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • Upper metallicity cap [M/H] <= 0.5 dex = 0.5 dex
    Imposed in Section 4.2 based on the maximum stellar metallicity in the Milky Way disk (0.4 dex, Nepal et al. 2024), raised to 0.5 to be conservative. This cap is what narrows the per-component metallicity ranges to the quoted 0.1-0.4 dex intervals; without it the ranges are unbounded above.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Depletion sequence coefficients A2X, B2X (Konstantopoulou et al. 2022, 2023) apply to individual components, including high-depletion Milky Way clouds.
    Invoked via Eq. (1) and Table 3; the authors acknowledge in Section 3.2 that the sequences were calibrated on full sight lines and were not tested on high-depletion Milky Way components (HD 62542 is a possible exception).
  • domain assumption All metal ions share the same velocity component structure as the highest-resolution optical lines (Ca ii, K i, Na i, Ti ii).
    Section 3.1: 'We assume that all species have a common velocity structure, which is obtained from the highest resolution spectra.' If the UV ions have unresolved substructure or different excitation conditions, the component column densities are biased.
  • domain assumption The O i 1355 line traces the velocity structure of H i and is used to fix the H i damping profile.
    Section 3.1: O i ionisation energy is similar to H i and charge exchange couples the ionisation fractions; the paper uses O i to set the radial velocity for the Lyman-alpha profile.
  • ad hoc to paper Gas-phase metallicity of any component is capped at [M/H] <= 0.5 dex.
    Section 4.2: imposed to limit the metallicity ranges; this is an external stellar prior applied as a hard cutoff to gas components, and it is load-bearing for the quoted metallicity accuracies.
  • domain assumption All gas-fraction realisations (integer compositions of 100 by 1%) are treated as equally likely.
    Section 3.3: 'In principle, each realisation is equally likely.' This flat prior over hydrogen distributions is a modelling choice; the minimum-difference result is then selected from this flat distribution.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Investigating chemical variations between interstellar gas clouds in the Solar neighbourhood." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UPXXIHTD

@misc{pith2026241218986,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Investigating chemical variations between interstellar gas clouds in the Solar neighbourhood},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UPXXIHTD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.18986}
}
read the original abstract

The interstellar medium (ISM) is a fundamental component of the Milky Way. Studying its chemical composition and the level of its chemical diversity gives us insight into the evolution of the Milky Way and the role of gas in the Galactic environment. In this paper, we use a novel simulation technique to model the distribution of total hydrogen between gas components, and therefore derive new constraints on the dust depletion and metallicity. We study individual gas components along the lines of sight towards eight bright O/B stars within 1.1 kpc of the Sun using high-resolution HST/STIS absorption spectra (R sim 114 000). We measure the level of dust depletion for these individual components and find components with higher levels of dust depletion compared to Milky Way sightlines in the literature. We find large ranges in the level of dust depletion among components along lines of sight, up to 1.19 dex. Although it is not possible to directly measure the metallicity of individual components due to the saturated and damped Ly-alpha line, we investigate possible metallicity ranges for individual gas components by exploring many different distributions of the total hydrogen gas between components. We select possible combinations of these gas fractions which produce the minimum metallicity difference between components, and for these cases we determine individual metallicities to accuracies that range between sim 0.1 to 0.4 dex. This work shows that full line-of-sight analyses wash out the level of diversity along lines of sight, and that component-by-component studies give a more in-depth understanding of the chemical intricacies of the interstellar medium.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.18986 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The distributions of total hydrogen gas fractions that we [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Velocity-depletion plot for groups of components. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Metal patterns for grouped components towards [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Depletion factors for individual components along each [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The simulation realisations for the most-likely cases [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The same as Fig. 5, but for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Labelled target map, colour-coded by the minimum dif [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Plot of metallicity realisations for individual components [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Variation in [Zn/Fe]fit plotted against the minimum dif￾ference in metallicity for all targets. The grey numbers indicate the number of groups of components along the line of sight [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Metallicity calculated over the full lines of sight as a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Abundance pattern for the total line of sight towards [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Photometric Mapping of Carbonaceous/Siliceous Dust and Water Ice in the ISM with JWST: Applications to the Dense Sightlines

    astro-ph.IM 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Three-band JWST photometry recovers optical depths of the 3.0 micron water ice and 10 micron silicate absorption features with roughly 15-30% accuracy, enabling wide-field maps of dust and ice in the interstellar medium.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  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]

    Z., Esteban , C., Garc \' a-Rojas , J., & M \'e ndez-Delgado , J

    Arellano-C \'o rdova , K. Z., Esteban , C., Garc \' a-Rojas , J., & M \'e ndez-Delgado , J. E. 2020, , 496, 1051

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    M., & Grevesse , N

    Asplund , M., Amarsi , A. M., & Grevesse , N. 2021, , 653, A141

    2021

  5. [5]

    A., Noterdaeme , P., Rahmani , H., et al

    Balashev , S. A., Noterdaeme , P., Rahmani , H., et al. 2017, , 470, 2890

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    & Rosolowsky , E

    Blitz , L. & Rosolowsky , E. 2006, , 650, 933

    2006

  7. [7]

    & Bergeron , J

    Boiss \'e , P. & Bergeron , J. 2019, , 622, A140

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    S., Alkhayat , R

    Brown , M. S., Alkhayat , R. B., Irving , R. E., et al. 2018, , 868, 42

    work page 2018

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    H., Kulkarni , V

    Cashman , F. H., Kulkarni , V. P., Kisielius , R., Ferland , G. J., & Bogdanovich , P. 2017, VizieR Online Data Catalog: Compilation of atomic data for key heavy elements (Cashman+, 2017) , VizieR On-line Data Catalog: J/ApJS/230/8. Originally published in: 2017ApJS..230....8C

    2017

  2. [10]

    A., Schaye , J., Bower , R

    Crain , R. A., Schaye , J., Bower , R. G., et al. 2015, , 450, 1937

    2015

  3. [11]

    B., Fox , A

    De Cia , A., Jenkins , E. B., Fox , A. J., et al. 2021, Nature, 206

    2021

  4. [12]

    2016, A&A, 596, A97

    De Cia , A., Ledoux, C., Mattson, L., et al. 2016, A&A, 596, A97

    2016

  5. [13]

    2024, , 683, A216

    De Cia , A., Roman-Duval , J., Konstantopoulou , C., et al. 2024, , 683, A216

    2024

  6. [14]

    Draine , B. T. 2003, , 41, 241

    2003

  7. [15]

    Field, G. B. 1974, ApJ, 187, 453

    1974

  8. [16]

    Fitzpatrick , E. L. & Spitzer , Lyman, J. 1994, , 427, 232

    1994

  9. [17]

    & Dav \'e , R

    Fox , A. & Dav \'e , R. 2017, Gas Accretion onto Galaxies

    2017

  10. [18]

    J., Richter , P., Ashley , T., et al

    Fox , A. J., Richter , P., Ashley , T., et al. 2019, , 884, 53

    2019

  11. [19]

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

    2009

  12. [20]

    B., Savage , B

    Jenkins , E. B., Savage , B. D., & Spitzer , L. 1986, ApJ, 301, 355

    1986

  13. [21]

    Jenkins , E. B. & Wallerstein , G. 2017, , 838, 85

    2017

  14. [22]

    2022, , 666, A12

    Konstantopoulou , C., De Cia , A., Krogager , J.-K., et al. 2022, , 666, A12

    2022

  15. [23]

    2023, , 674, C1

    Konstantopoulou , C., De Cia , A., Krogager , J.-K., et al. 2023, , 674, C1

    2023

  16. [24]

    2024, , 691, A129

    Konstantopoulou , C., De Cia , A., Krogager , J.-K., et al. 2024, , 691, A129

    2024

  17. [25]

    2018, VoigtFit: Absorption line fitting for Voigt profiles , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1811.016

    Krogager , J.-K. 2018, VoigtFit: Absorption line fitting for Voigt profiles , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1811.016

    2018

  18. [26]

    Y., Vergely , J

    Lallement , R., Welsh , B. Y., Vergely , J. L., Crifo , F., & Sfeir , D. 2003, , 411, 447

    2003

  19. [27]

    Lodders , K., Palme , H., & Gail , H. P. 2009, Landolt B&ouml;rnstein, 4B, 712

    2009

  20. [28]

    C., & Zafar , T

    Mattsson , L., De Cia , A., Andersen , A. C., & Zafar , T. 2014, , 440, 1562

    2014

  21. [29]

    Morton , D. C. 2003, , 149, 205

    2003

  22. [30]

    2019, , 490, 3234

    Nelson , D., Pillepich , A., Springel , V., et al. 2019, , 490, 3234

    2019

  23. [31]

    2024, , 681, L8

    Nepal , S., Chiappini , C., Guiglion , G., et al. 2024, , 681, L8

    2024

  24. [32]

    R., Cunha , K., Smith , V

    Pan , K., Federman , S. R., Cunha , K., Smith , V. V., & Welty , D. E. 2004, VizieR Online Data Catalog: Optical spectra in star-forming regions (Pan+, 2004) , VizieR On-line Data Catalog: J/ApJS/151/313. Originally published in: 2004ApJS..151..313P

    2004

  25. [33]

    2020, , 499, 2462

    P \'e roux , C., Nelson , D., van de Voort , F., et al. 2020, , 499, 2462

    2020

  26. [34]

    P., Gondhalekar , P

    Phillips , A. P., Gondhalekar , P. M., & Pettini , M. 1982, MNRAS, 200, 687

    1982

  27. [35]

    2019, , 490, 3196

    Pillepich , A., Nelson , D., Springel , V., et al. 2019, , 490, 3196

    2019

  28. [36]

    J., Crawford , I

    Price , R. J., Crawford , I. A., Barlow , M. J., & Howarth , I. D. 2001, , 328, 555

    2001

  29. [37]

    K., et al

    Ramburuth-Hurt , T., De Cia , A., Krogager , J. K., et al. 2023, , 672

    2023

  30. [38]

    2017, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol

    Richter , P. 2017, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 430, Gas Accretion onto Galaxies, ed. A. Fox & R. Dav \'e , 15

    2017

  31. [39]

    M., Jenkins , E

    Ritchey , A. M., Jenkins , E. B., Shull , J. M., et al. 2023, , 952, 57

    2023

  32. [40]

    B., Tchernyshyov , K., et al

    Roman-Duval , J., Jenkins , E. B., Tchernyshyov , K., et al. 2021, ApJ, 910, 95

    2021

  33. [41]

    Routly , P. M. & Spitzer , Lyman, J. 1952, , 115, 227

    1952

  34. [42]

    D., Bohlin , R

    Savage , B. D., Bohlin , R. C., Drake , J. F., & Budich , W. 1977, , 216, 291

    1977

  35. [43]

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

    1996

  36. [44]

    A., Bower , R

    Schaye , J., Crain , R. A., Bower , R. G., et al. 2015, , 446, 521

    2015

  37. [45]

    Siluk , R. S. & Silk , J. 1974, , 192, 51

    1974

  38. [46]

    A., Neiman , M

    Spirko , J. A., Neiman , M. L., Oelker , A. M., & Klier , K. 2004, Surface Science, 572, 191

    2004

  39. [47]

    C., Schultz , D

    Stancil , P. C., Schultz , D. R., Kimura , M., et al. 1999, , 140, 225

    1999

  40. [48]

    A., Clayton , G

    Valencic , L. A., Clayton , G. C., & Gordon , K. D. 2004, , 616, 912

    2004

  41. [49]

    2024, , 685, A103

    Velichko , A., De Cia , A., Konstantopoulou , C., et al. 2024, , 685, A103

    2024

  42. [50]

    Welty , D. E. & Crowther , P. A. 2010, , 404, 1321

    2010

  43. [51]

    Welty , D. E. & Hobbs , L. M. 2001, , 133, 345

    2001

  44. [52]

    E., Hobbs , L

    Welty , D. E., Hobbs , L. M., & Morton , D. C. 2003, , 147, 61

    2003

  45. [53]

    E., Hobbs , L

    Welty , D. E., Hobbs , L. M., & York , D. G. 1991, , 75, 425

    1991

  46. [54]

    E., Sonnentrucker , P., Snow , T

    Welty , D. E., Sonnentrucker , P., Snow , T. P., & York , D. G. 2020, ApJ, 897, 36

    2020

  47. [55]

    A., Alves , J., et al

    Zucker , C., Goodman , A. A., Alves , J., et al. 2022, , 601, 334

    2022

Pith tools

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