Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 3 cited by

PDRs4All XI. Detection of infrared CH$^+$ and CH$_3^+$ rovibrational emission in the Orion Bar and disk d203-506: evidence of chemical pumping

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

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

Pith's one-line read Infrared CH+ lines in the Orion Bar and disk d203-506 are lit by the chemical reaction that forms them, not by gas temperature.

desk verdict A genuinely new detection and a clever, transparent chemical pumping analysis that will be influential, though the rate extrapolation makes the quantitative density diagnostic provisional. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.08354 v1 pith:E53TSWHJ submitted 2025-02-12 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR

Marion Zannese , Benoît Tabone , Emilie Habart , Emmanuel Dartois , Javier R. Goicoechea , Laurent Coudert , Bérenger Gans , Marie-Aline Martin-Drumel
show 15 more authors
Ugo Jacovella Alexandre Faure Benjamin Godard Alexander G. G. M. Tielens R. Le Gal John H. Black Silvia Vicente Olivier Berné Els Peeters Dries Van De Putte Ryan Chown Ameek Sidhu Ilane Schroetter Amélie Canin Olga Kannavou
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR
keywords CH+methylidynecationCH3+methylchemicalformationpumpingrovibrationalemissionH2FUVOrionBarprotoplanetarydiskd203-506JWSTspectroscopy
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

Using JWST near- and mid-infrared spectra of two UV-irradiated environments, the Orion Bar photodissociation region and the externally irradiated protoplanetary disk d203-506, the paper reports the first detection of CH+ and CH3+ rovibrational emission in the Bar and shows that it traces the same thin layer as FUV-pumped, highly excited H2. It argues that the CH+ lines are excited neither by heat nor by radiative pumping but by chemical formation pumping: the reaction C+ + H2* -> CH+ + H deposits the internal energy of excited H2 into the cation, which then cascades radiatively. This mechanism naturally explains why the CH+ excitation temperature is higher in the cooler Bar, about 1500 K, than in the warmer disk, about 850 K, because the two regions have different H2 level population distributions. The derived column densities in the emitting vibrational states are below 0.1 percent of the total CH+ and CH3+ columns, so the lines are a non-thermal probe. If the mechanism holds, line intensities become a diagnostic of local gas density at the H/H2 transition.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the chemical formation pumping model: a master-equation cascade in which CH+ is born in a nascent state distribution $f_i$ from the reaction C$^+$ + H$_2$ with state-to-state rate coefficients, then radiatively cascades down a rotational ladder with leakage through $v\to v-1$ transitions. The nascent distribution is fixed by the observed H$_2$ level populations and by reaction rate coefficients from quantum-dynamical calculations, extended by a published energy-based extrapolation to all unmeasured H$_2$ levels. The model's output is a set of normalized line intensities depending only on the nascent distribution and Einstein $A$ coefficients, so observed intensities can be converted directly into CH$^+$ formation rates and, with an H$_2$ column and C$^+$ abundance, into gas density.

What would settle it

Compute state-to-state rate coefficients for C+ + H2 starting from high-J pure rotational levels, for example v'=0, J'=8-15, and from v'=1-2 levels, then predict CH+ v=1 J populations; if the predictions with the true rates disagree with the JWST excitation diagrams, the energy-based extrapolation and the derived densities are wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the vibrationally excited CH+ and, by extension, CH3+ seen by JWST in two very different irradiated environments is produced and excited in the gas phase through the hydrogen-abstraction chain starting from C+ + H2. The observed CH+ v=1 and v=2 line intensities in the Orion Bar and d203-506 are reproduced by a chemical-formation-pumping model in which the nascent CH+ state distribution is set by state-to-state rate coefficients for C+ + H2(v',J') -> CH+(v,J) + H and by the measured H2 level populations. The same model explains the counterintuitive ordering of excitation temperatures: in the Bar, FUV-pumped high-energy H2 levels dominate and populate high-J CH+ states, giving about 1500 K, while in d203-506, collisionally excited pure rotational H2 levels dominate and populate lower-J states, giving about 850 K. The paper therefore concludes that the rovibrational emission is a small, non-thermal, formation-driven component, and that combining CH+ intensities with chemical-pumping models yields the local density.

Load-bearing premise

The argument hinges on treating every excited state of H2 as equally reactive once its energy is known, so a rotationally excited H2 molecule is assumed to behave like a vibrationally excited one of the same energy.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • CH+ v=1 and v=2 line intensities become direct measures of the CH+ formation rate via C+ + H2*, so JWST spectra can quantify gas-phase hydrocarbon formation in action.
  • Because the excitation is non-thermal and set by H2 level populations, the same lines can diagnose the local gas density at the H/H2 transition: about 10^6 cm^-3 in the Bar and about 10^7 cm^-3 in d203-506.
  • The co-spatiality of CH+, CH3+, and highly excited H2 supports a gas-phase hydrogen-abstraction chain C+ -> CH+ -> CH2+ -> CH3+ as the dominant route, with no need for PAH photodestruction.
  • The difference in excitation temperature between regions is a signature of which H2 reservoir feeds the reaction: collisionally populated rotational levels in warm dense gas versus FUV-pumped high-energy levels in lower-density irradiated gas.
  • If the same pumping mechanism holds for CH3+, its blended 7-micron Q-branch shape can be used as a thermometer of the pumping H2 distribution, though state-resolved CH2+ + H2 rates are needed to confirm.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the energy-based rate extrapolation is validated by future quantum calculations, CH+ line ratios would become a general remote thermometer of the H2 level population distribution, separating FUV pumping from collisional excitation.
  • The same chemical-pumping logic that converts CH+ intensities into density could be extended to other reactive hydrides formed from H2, giving a family of JWST-accessible density and formation-rate diagnostics.
  • The non-detection of CH2+ may not contradict the chain: if CH2+ is born in an excited electronic state, its strongest emission would be vibronic in the near-infrared, where the paper notes unidentified lines remain.
  • A full depth-dependent PDR model that includes CH+ chemical pumping could test whether the inferred higher thermal pressure in the Bar is real or an artifact of averaging H2 populations over a large aperture.
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

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. This paper reports JWST NIRSpec/MIRI-MRS detections of CH+ and CH3+ rovibrational emission in the Orion Bar dissociation front DF3 and in the externally irradiated disk d203-506. The authors measure line intensities and excitation temperatures (Tex ~ 1500 K in the Bar versus ~ 800–850 K in d203-506), show that the emitting column densities are a tiny fraction of the total predicted CH+/CH3+ column densities, and demonstrate that the CH+ emission is spatially correlated with highly excited H2. They develop a zero-dimensional chemical-formation-pumping model in which CH+ is formed by C+ + H2* and subsequently radiatively cascades, and they show that the model reproduces the relative intensities of the observed CH+ v=1 and v=2 lines in both environments. They further use the model to derive CH+ formation rates and to propose a gas-density diagnostic. CH3+ is analyzed through LTE fits to the unresolved Q branch, and a non-detection of CH2+ is discussed.

Significance. The observational dataset is valuable and appears carefully reduced: line intensities are tabulated with S/N >= 3, extinction corrections are described, and the CH+ emission in a PDR and a disk is compared at JWST angular resolution. The relative line-intensity predictions of the chemical-pumping model are not fitted to the CH+ data, which is a strength, and the paper explicitly identifies the main theoretical uncertainty. If the chemical-pumping interpretation survives scrutiny, the paper would establish a new diagnostic of local density and support gas-phase formation of small hydrocarbons in UV-irradiated regions. However, the quantitative conclusions — in particular the formation rates, the density estimates, and the Bar/disk excitation-temperature dichotomy — rest on state-to-state rate coefficients that are computed for only three H2 levels and extrapolated to all others on the basis of energy alone. That assumption is load-bearing and currently limits confidence in the quantitative claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.2.1, Eq. (5); §5.2.2; Fig. 8] The chemical-pumping calculation uses state-to-state rate coefficients for only three H2 levels (v'=1, J'=0,1 and v'=2, J'=0), and the Neufeld et al. (2021) extrapolation assigns rates to all other levels according to energy alone, treating rotational and vibrational H2 levels at similar energy as equivalent. This assumption is load-bearing for the central interpretation: the predicted line ratios in Fig. 8, the statement in §5.2.2 that CH+ in d203-506 is excited primarily through pure rotational H2 levels (v'=0, J'=5-10), and the 'lower excitation temperature' explanation all change if rotational H2 has different reactivity than vibrational H2 of similar energy. Because the manuscript itself states (Sect. 5.2.1 and Conclusion) that this extrapolation is unvalidated, the quantitative results should be presented as conditional. I ask the authors to add sensitivity tests that vary the relative rates for high-J v'=0 levels versus v'>0 levels over a plausible range, and to mark the affected values in Table 1, Eq. (13), and conclusion item 5 as dependent on this assumption.
  2. [§6.1.2, Eq. (13)] The density diagnostic nH = R / [k N(H2) x(C+)] inherits the extrapolated rates through both R (Eq. 10) and k (Eq. 12). The derived Bar density (nH = 0.6-1.5×10^6 cm^-3, Pgas ~ 3-7×10^8 K cm^-3) already exceeds the H2-derived pressure by a factor of 3-7, and the manuscript attributes part of this to aperture averaging; an unquantified systematic error in the rate extrapolation would shift nH by a comparable or larger factor. Before the paper can claim that 'observed CH+ intensities ... provide a diagnostic tool to trace the local density' (abstract and Conclusion item 7), the sensitivity of nH to the rate extrapolation should be quantified, or the diagnostic should be framed as preliminary.
  3. [§5.2.2 and Conclusion, item 5] The conclusion that in d203-506 the excitation of CH+ is 'mostly driven by H2 rotational levels populated by collisions' and in the Bar by FUV-pumped levels is stated as a quantitative result, but it remains a hypothesis because all rates for the pure rotational H2 levels involved are extrapolated, not computed. The comparison in Fig. B.1 shows the model's sensitivity to the assumed H2 level distribution, but not to the rate coefficients themselves. The paper should either provide or cite state-to-state rates for H2(v'=0, high-J) or present this environmental dichotomy as a qualitative prediction that awaits quantum calculations.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Throughout] There are numerous typographical errors, e.g., 'di fferent', 'a ffected', 'were ˜Ii j' in the text after Eq. (8), and 'ont of the origin' in §6.3.3; the manuscript needs a careful proofreading pass.
  2. [Table C.1] Table C.1 lists the v=2→1 R(7) line with intensity 1.12 ± 0.84 (S/N ~ 1.3), which is below the stated S/N ≥ 3 threshold used elsewhere in §5.1.1; please clarify whether this line is used in the excitation analysis or included only for completeness.
  3. [§5.1.2] The CH3+ excitation temperature is derived from only two line ratios under an LTE model, and no state-to-state chemical-pumping model is presented for CH3+; the text should state explicitly that the CH3+ analysis is an LTE-based temperature estimate and that the chemical-pumping evidence for CH3+ is only indirect.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The CH+ chemical-pumping prediction is not fitted to CH+ data, but its key qualitative output is imported via the energy-based Neufeld et al. (2021) rate extrapolation, a load-bearing self-cited ansatz.

  1. ansatz smuggled in via citation [Sect. 5.2.1, Eq. (5) and following text; Appendix E, Fig. E.1]
    "Hence, this study is based solely on the energy of H2 levels, without taking into account the difference between rotation and vibration. For the other levels of H2 and CH+, we used the extrapolation proposed by Neufeld et al. (2021) and we normalize it to the rate coefficient of the reaction C+ + H2 (v′ = 1, J′ = 0)→ CH+ (v = 1, J = 0) + H."

    Only three H2 levels have quantum state-to-state rates; for all other levels the model adopts an energy-only extrapolation from Neufeld et al. (2021), a paper with overlapping authorship (Godard). The extrapolation treats rotational and vibrational H2 energy as equivalent and imposes a cone-like mapping from H2 energy to CH+ product J (Fig. E.1). The central explanation—higher CH+ excitation temperature in the Bar because FUV-pumped high-energy H2 levels dominate—is therefore largely a consequence of that assumed energy scaling, not an independent test of the chemistry.

full rationale

The paper's forward model is otherwise self-contained: the nascent CH+ distribution fi in Eq. (5) is computed from published quantum rate coefficients (Zanchet et al. 2013; Faure et al. 2017) and observed H2 level populations, and the cascade equations (6)-(9) contain no adjustable constants for the line ratios. The absolute intensity normalization in Eq. (8) treats the formation rate R as a derived quantity, not a fit, and the derived densities in Eq. (13) follow from independently measured H2 column densities and abundances. No CH+ line intensity is fitted to force the Bar/disk excitation-temperature difference. The only load-bearing reduction is the rate input: for all H2 levels except v'=1, J'=0,1 and v'=2, J'=0, the state-to-state rates are taken from the energy-based extrapolation of Neufeld et al. (2021), which itself is an ansatz rather than a machine-checked or externally validated quantum result. Because that extrapolation encodes the energy-to-J mapping, the model's qualitative prediction that higher-energy H2 populations yield higher-J CH+ and hence higher Tex is substantially built into the cited assumption. This is a correctness and circularity concern of moderate weight: the central claim still has independent content from the observed H2 distributions and the unadjusted cascade calculation, but the quantitative Bar versus disk difference cannot be regarded as a first-principles prediction until the extrapolated rates are replaced by actual calculations.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical constants, particles, or entities. The load-bearing inputs are published quantum rate coefficients, an energy-based extrapolation of those rates, measured H2 level populations, and adopted elemental abundances. The single most fragile input is the rate extrapolation, which directly controls the predicted CH+ population distribution and the derived density.

free parameters (2)
  • H2 high-level population plateau = Eup < 30,000 K populated at the last observed level of each vibrational mode (upper limit)
    Hand-chosen boundary treatment in Sect. 5.2.2 for unobserved H2 levels; this shapes the modeled pumping spectrum and hence the predicted CH+ line ratios.
  • x(C+) ionized carbon abundance = 1.4e-4
    Adopted from Sofia et al. (1997) in Eq. 13 to convert the derived formation rate into a gas density; a literature input, not fitted here, but it directly scales the density diagnostic.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The quantum state-to-state rate coefficients of Zanchet et al. (2013) and Faure et al. (2017) for C+ + H2(v'=1,J'=0,1) and (v'=2,J'=0) are accurate.
    Used in Eq. 5 to compute the nascent CH+ distribution; Section 5.2.1.
  • ad hoc to paper The energy-based extrapolation of Neufeld et al. (2021) approximates rates for all unmeasured H2 levels, treating rotational and vibrational levels with similar energy as equivalent.
    Central to the model; the authors state that new quantum calculations are needed to check this extrapolation; Section 5.2.1.
  • domain assumption The observed CH+ rovibrational levels are excited only by chemical pumping and radiative cascade, with negligible contributions from collisions, IR pumping, and UV pumping.
    Justified via critical densities around 1e10 cm^-3 and order-of-magnitude estimates in Section 6.2; the low-J discrepancy in the Bar indicates collisions are not fully negligible.
  • domain assumption A single-layer, zero-dimensional model is a valid approximation for the line-forming region.
    Introduced in Sect. 5.2.1 and discussed in Sect. 6.1.2; the paper acknowledges that steep gradients and aperture averaging introduce systematic errors.
  • domain assumption H2 level populations measured with JWST, plus the adopted extrapolation, represent the populations at the CH+ formation site.
    Used as input to Eq. 5; the extrapolation of high-E levels is described in Sect. 5.2.2.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of PDRs4All XI. Detection of infrared CH$^+$ and CH$_3^+$ rovibrational emission in the Orion Bar and disk d203-506: evidence of chemical pumping." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/E53TSWHJ

@misc{pith2026250208354,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: PDRs4All XI. Detection of infrared CH$^+$ and CH$_3^+$ rovibrational emission in the Orion Bar and disk d203-506: evidence of chemical pumping},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/E53TSWHJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.08354}
}
abstract

The methylidyne cation (CH$^+$) and the methyl cation (CH$_3^+$) are building blocks of organic molecules, yet their coupled formation and excitation mechanisms remain mainly unprobed. The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), with its high spatial resolution and good spectral resolution, provides unique access to the detection of these molecules. Our goal is to use the first detection of CH$^+$ and CH$_3^+$ rovibrational emission in the Orion Bar and in the protoplanetary disk d203-506, irradiated by the Trapezium cluster, to probe their formation and excitation mechanisms and constrain the physico-chemical conditions. We use spectro-imaging acquired using both the NIRSpec and MIRI-MRS instruments to study the CH$^+$ and CH$_3^+$ spatial distribution at very small scales, and compare it to excited H$_2$ emission. CH$^+$ and CH$_3^+$ emissions originate from the same region as highly excited H$_2$. Our comparison between the Bar and d203-506 reveals that both CH$^+$ and CH$_3^+$ excitation and/or formation are highly dependent on gas density. The excitation temperature of the observed CH$^+$ and CH$_3^+$ rovibrational lines is around $T$ ~ 1500 K in the Bar and $T$ ~ 800 K in d203-506. Moreover, the column densities derived from the rovibrational emission are less than 0.1 % of the total known (CH$^+$) and expected (CH$_3^+$) column densities. These results show that CH$^+$ and CH$_3^+$ level populations strongly deviate from ETL. CH$^+$ rovibrational emission can be explained by chemical formation pumping with excited H$_2$ via C$^+$ + H$_2^*$ = CH$^+$ + H. These results support a gas phase formation pathway of CH$^+$ and CH$_3^+$ via successive hydrogen abstraction reactions. However, we do not find any evidence of CH$_2^+$ emission in the JWST spectrum. Finally, observed CH$^+$ intensities coupled with chemical formation pumping model provide a diagnostic tool to trace the local density.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.08354 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. JWST NIRCam composite image of the Orion Bar, lo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. H2 0–0 S(9) continuum subtracted map at 4.69 µm (Sidhu et al. in prep). The green boxes are the aperture used to extract the spectra. (Left) CH+ v = 1 − 0 P(5) line at 3.86 µm. (Right) CH+ 3 emission from the Q branch around 7.15 µm. The solid red graphs are LTE models adapted to the observations (see Sect. 5.1 and Fig. D.1 and D.2). The gray filling represents 1% of the continuum. This shows that CH+ and CH+ 3 are … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Normalized integrated intensity profiles of the CH [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Integrated intensity ratio of CH+ v = 1 − 0 P(5) over H2 0–0 S(9) (top) and peak intensity ratio of CH+ 3 7.19 µm emission over H2 0–0 S(9) (bottom) as function of the integrated intensity ratio of H2 1–0 S(1) / H2 2-1 S(1) which is a tracer of density in these conditi…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Excitation diagram and level population of CH [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: LTE models of the Q branch of CH+ 3 at a column density of Nvib(CH+ 3 ) = 2×1010 cm−2 at different excitation temperatures using the set of spectroscopic constants from Changala et al. (2023). The higher the excitation temperature is, the more in￾tense the lines at sho…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: CH+ 3 line ratios as a function of temperature. The blue line is the estimation of the ratios from LTE models. The gray area is the measurement of the ratio in the data in DF3. The un￾certainties come from the estimation of the continuum. The red lines trace the temper…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: displays the calculated normalized intensities ˜Ii j of the rovibrational transitions v = 1 → 0, J → J + 1 of CH+ consid￾ering both direct and indirect chemical pumping (see Eq. (9)) in the Bar and in d203-506. The chemical-pumping model shows a good agreement with obs…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Normalized intensities ˜Ii j of CH+ of v = 0 → 0, J → J−1 (green), v = 1 → 0, J → J + 1 (blue), v = 2 → 1, J → J+1 (red) following chemical-pumping considering the observed population densities of H2 and temperature in the Bar and in d203-506. Emissions from v = 1 and …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Energy level diagram of the bending levels in the two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Continuum and OFF position subtracted spectrum of the disk d203-506 between 9 and 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Resolving dense photo-dissociation regions: the structure of photochemical fronts in three-dimensional gas distributions

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

    A three-dimensional PDR model shows that overlapping H2 dissociation and C+ recombination fronts, plus the arc-like H2 emission seen in the Orion Bar, arise from shadowing by dense clumps in a fractal gas distribution.

  2. XUE. JWST spectroscopy of externally irradiated disks around young intermediate-mass stars

    astro-ph.SR 2025-05 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Externally irradiated intermediate-mass disks in NGC 6357 retain molecular richness comparable to isolated T Tauri disks, with hot water common and no clear irradiation chemistry.

  3. JWST/MIRI Detection of Molecular H$_2$ Winds from an Edge-on Class II Source HV Tau C

    astro-ph.SR 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The edge-on Class II disk HV Tau C hosts a spatially extended, wide-angled molecular hydrogen wind with warm (~600 K) and hot (~2000 K) components and a mass-loss rate near 1e-8 solar masses per year.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

90 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  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]

    R., Cernicharo , J., Faure , A., & Roueff , E

    Ag \'u ndez , M., Goicoechea , J. R., Cernicharo , J., Faure , A., & Roueff , E. 2010, , 713, 662

    2010

  4. [4]

    A., Mu \ n oz Caro , G

    Alata , I., Cruz-Diaz , G. A., Mu \ n oz Caro , G. M., & Dartois , E. 2014, , 569, A119

    2014

  5. [5]

    2015, , 584, A123

    Alata , I., Jallat , A., Gavilan , L., et al. 2015, , 584, A123

    2015

  6. [6]

    2018, Journal of Molecular Spectroscopy, 347, 1

    Asvany, O., Thorwirth, S., Redlich, B., & Schlemmer, S. 2018, Journal of Molecular Spectroscopy, 347, 1

    2018

  7. [7]

    2022, , 134, 054301

    Bern \'e , O., Habart , \'E ., Peeters , E., et al. 2022, , 134, 054301

    2022

  8. [8]

    2024, Science, 383, 988

    Bern \'e , O., Habart , E., Peeters , E., et al. 2024, Science, 383, 988

    2024

Show all 90 references
  1. [9]

    2023, , 621, 56

    Bern \'e , O., Martin-Drumel , M.-A., Schroetter , I., et al. 2023, , 621, 56

    2023

  2. [10]

    Black , J. H. 1998, Faraday Discussions, 109, 257

    1998

  3. [11]

    R., & Cernicharo , J

    Bron , E., Ag \'u ndez , M., Goicoechea , J. R., & Cernicharo , J. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1801.01547

    2018 arXiv

  4. [12]

    O., van Dishoeck , E

    Bruderer , S., Benz , A. O., van Dishoeck , E. F., et al. 2010, , 521, L44

    2010

  5. [13]

    2001, Chemical physics letters, 341, 358

    Bunker, P., Chan, M., Kraemer, W., & Jensen, P. 2001, Chemical physics letters, 341, 358

    2001

  6. [14]

    R., Kraemer , W

    Bunker , P. R., Kraemer , W. P., Yurchenko , S. N., et al. 2007, Molecular Physics, 105, 1369

    2007

  7. [15]

    W., Gonz \'a lez-Alfonso , E., et al

    Cernicharo , J., Liu , X. W., Gonz \'a lez-Alfonso , E., et al. 1997, , 483, L65

    1997

  8. [16]

    B., Chen , N

    Changala , P. B., Chen , N. L., Le , H. L., et al. 2023, , 680, A19

    2023

  9. [17]

    B., Neufeld , D

    Changala , P. B., Neufeld , D. A., & Godard , B. 2021, , 917, 16

    2021

  10. [18]

    2024, , 685, A75

    Chown , R., Sidhu, Ameek , Peeters, Els , et al. 2024, , 685, A75

    2024

  11. [19]

    2018, The Journal of Chemical Physics, 149

    Coudert, L., Gans, B., Holzmeier, F., et al. 2018, The Journal of Chemical Physics, 149

    2018

  12. [20]

    R., Pilleri , P., et al

    Cuadrado , S., Goicoechea , J. R., Pilleri , P., et al. 2015, , 579, C1

    2015

  13. [21]

    K., Alcaraz, C., Elhanine, M., et al

    Cunha de Miranda, B. K., Alcaraz, C., Elhanine, M., et al. 2010, The Journal of Physical Chemistry A, 114, 4818, pMID: 20218643

    2010

  14. [22]

    B., Hamilton, P

    Davies, P. B., Hamilton, P. A., & Rothwell, W. J. 1984, The Journal of Chemical Physics, 81, 1598

    1984

  15. [23]

    Douglas , A. E. & Herzberg , G. 1941, , 94, 381

    1941

  16. [24]

    2010, , 521, L15

    Falgarone , E., Godard , B., Cernicharo , J., et al. 2010, , 521, L15

    2010

  17. [25]

    2017, , 469, 612

    Faure, A., Halvick, P., Stoecklin, T., et al. 2017, , 469, 612

    2017

  18. [26]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 527

    Forer, J., Hvizdoš, D., Ayouz, M., Greene, C., & Kokoouline, V. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 527

    2023

  19. [27]

    C., McKellar , A

    Foster , S. C., McKellar , A. R. W., & Sears , T. J. 1984, , 81, 578

    1984

  20. [28]

    R., Tielens , A

    Geballe , T. R., Tielens , A. G. G. M., Allamandola , L. J., Moorhouse , A., & Brand , P. W. J. L. 1989, , 341, 278

    1989

  21. [29]

    A., & Goicoechea , J

    Gerin , M., Neufeld , D. A., & Goicoechea , J. R. 2016, , 54, 181

    2016

  22. [30]

    & Cernicharo , J

    Godard , B. & Cernicharo , J. 2013, , 550, A8

    2013

  23. [31]

    R., Le Bourlot , J., Black , J

    Goicoechea , J. R., Le Bourlot , J., Black , J. H., et al. 2024, , 689, L4

    2024

  24. [32]

    R., Pety , J., Cuadrado , S., et al

    Goicoechea , J. R., Pety , J., Cuadrado , S., et al. 2025, , submitted

    2025

  25. [33]

    R., Pety , J., Cuadrado , S., et al

    Goicoechea , J. R., Pety , J., Cuadrado , S., et al. 2016, , 537, 207

    2016

  26. [34]

    Goicoechea , J. R. & Roncero , O. 2022, , 664, A190

    2022

  27. [35]

    R., Santa-Maria , M

    Goicoechea , J. R., Santa-Maria , M. G., Bron , E., et al. 2019, , 622, A91

    2019

  28. [36]

    D., Clayton , G

    Gordon , K. D., Clayton , G. C., Decleir , M., et al. 2023, , 950, 86

    2023

  29. [37]

    Gottfried, J. L. & Oka, T. 2004, The Journal of chemical physics, 121, 11527

    2004

  30. [38]

    V., Pety , J., Goicoechea , J

    Guzm \'a n , V. V., Pety , J., Goicoechea , J. R., et al. 2015, , 800, L33

    2015

  31. [39]

    2010, , 518, L116

    Habart , E., Dartois , E., Abergel , A., et al. 2010, , 518, L116

    2010

  32. [40]

    2023, , 673, A149

    Habart , E., Le Gal , R., Alvarez , C., et al. 2023, , 673, A149

    2023

  33. [41]

    2024, , 685, A73

    Habart , E., Peeters, Els , Berné, Olivier , et al. 2024, , 685, A73

    2024

  34. [42]

    Habing , H. J. 1968, , 19, 421

    1968

  35. [43]

    C., & St \"a uber , P

    Hammami , K., Owono Owono , L. C., & St \"a uber , P. 2009, , 507, 1083

    2009

  36. [44]

    J., Reiter , M., O'Dell , C

    Haworth , T. J., Reiter , M., O'Dell , C. R., et al. 2023, , 525, 4129

    2023

  37. [45]

    2024, , 136, 054302

    Henning , T., Kamp , I., Samland , M., et al. 2024, , 136, 054302

    2024

  38. [46]

    2021, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 8, 207

    Herbst , E. 2021, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 8, 207

    2021

  39. [47]

    M., Morris , R

    Hierl , P. M., Morris , R. A., & Viggiano , A. A. 1997, , 106, 10145

    1997

  40. [48]

    Hollenbach , D. J. & Tielens , A. G. G. M. 1997, , 35, 179

    1997

  41. [49]

    2020, , 497, 5061

    Inoguchi , M., Hosokawa , T., Mineshige , S., & Kim , J.-G. 2020, , 497, 5061

    2020

  42. [50]

    1995, Journal of Molecular Spectroscopy, 172, 194

    Jensen, P., Brumm, M., Kraemer, W., & Bunker, P. 1995, Journal of Molecular Spectroscopy, 172, 194

    1995

  43. [51]

    H., Cortona, P., Ayouz, M., & Kokoouline, V

    Jiang, X., Yuen, C. H., Cortona, P., Ayouz, M., & Kokoouline, V. 2019, Phys. Rev. A, 100, 062711

    2019

  44. [52]

    2018, , 615, A129

    Joblin , C., Bron , E., Pinto , C., et al. 2018, , 615, A129

    2018

  45. [53]

    Joblin , C., Tielens , A. G. G. M., Allamandola , L. J., & Geballe , T. R. 1996, , 458, 610

    1996

  46. [54]

    E., Barlow, S., Ellison, G., & Ferguson, E

    Jones, M. E., Barlow, S., Ellison, G., & Ferguson, E. 1986, Chemical Physics Letters, 130, 218

    1986

  47. [55]

    F., Dinerstein, H

    Kaplan, K. F., Dinerstein, H. L., Kim, H., & Jaffe, D. T. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 919, 27

    2021

  48. [56]

    F., Dinerstein , H

    Kaplan , K. F., Dinerstein , H. L., Oh , H., et al. 2017, , 838, 152

    2017

  49. [57]

    2009, Molecular Physics, 107, 1283

    Keceli , M., Shiozaki , T., Yagi , K., & Hirata , S. 2009, Molecular Physics, 107, 1283

    2009

  50. [58]

    1994, Canadian Journal of Physics, 72, 871

    Kraemer, W., Jensen, P., & Bunker, P. 1994, Canadian Journal of Physics, 72, 871

    1994

  51. [59]

    & Špirko, V

    Kraemer, W. & Špirko, V. 1991, Journal of Molecular Spectroscopy, 149, 235

    1991

  52. [60]

    2006, , 164, 506

    Le Petit , F., Nehm \'e , C., Le Bourlot , J., & Roueff , E. 2006, , 164, 506

    2006

  53. [61]

    d., Aguado , A., Goicoechea , J

    Mazo-Sevillano , P. d., Aguado , A., Goicoechea , J. R., & Roncero , O. 2024, , 160, 184307

    2024

  54. [62]

    M., Reid , M

    Menten , K. M., Reid , M. J., Forbrich , J., & Brunthaler , A. 2007, , 474, 515

    2007

  55. [63]

    Nagy , Z., Ossenkopf , V., Van der Tak , F. F. S., et al. 2015, , 578, A124

    2015

  56. [64]

    Nagy , Z., Van der Tak , F. F. S., Ossenkopf , V., et al. 2013, , 550, A96

    2013

  57. [65]

    A., Dartois , E., Habart , E., et al

    Naylor , D. A., Dartois , E., Habart , E., et al. 2010, , 518, L117

    2010

  58. [66]

    A., Godard , B., Bryan Changala , P., et al

    Neufeld , D. A., Godard , B., Bryan Changala , P., et al. 2021, , 917, 15

    2021

  59. [67]

    R., Jensen , P., & Kraemer , W

    Osmann , G., Bunker , P. R., Jensen , P., & Kraemer , W. P. 1997, Chemical Physics, 225, 33

    1997

  60. [68]

    2017, , 599, A20

    Parikka , A., Habart , E., Bernard-Salas , J., et al. 2017, , 599, A20

    2017

  61. [69]

    2024, , 685, A74

    Peeters , E., Habart, Emilie , Berné, Olivier , et al. 2024, , 685, A74

    2024

  62. [70]

    2005, , 435, 885

    Pety , J., Teyssier , D., Foss \'e , D., et al. 2005, , 435, 885

    2005

  63. [71]

    R., Glenn , J., et al

    Rangwala , N., Maloney , P. R., Glenn , J., et al. 2014, , 788, 147

    2014

  64. [72]

    1992, Journal of molecular spectroscopy (Print), 153, 738

    R \"o sslein, M., Gabrys, C., Jagod, M.-F., & Oka, T. 1992, Journal of molecular spectroscopy (Print), 153, 738

    1992

  65. [73]

    1992, Chemical Reviews, 92, 1473

    Smith, D. 1992, Chemical Reviews, 92, 1473

    1992

  66. [74]

    J., Cardelli , J

    Sofia , U. J., Cardelli , J. A., Guerin , K. P., & Meyer , D. M. 1997, , 482, L105

    1997

  67. [75]

    2012, , 758, 108

    Spinoglio , L., Pereira-Santaella , M., Busquet , G., et al. 2012, , 758, 108

    2012

  68. [76]

    Stecher , T. P. & Williams , D. A. 1972, , 177, L141

    1972

  69. [77]

    & Dalgarno , A

    Sternberg , A. & Dalgarno , A. 1995, , 99, 565

    1995

  70. [78]

    C., van Dishoeck , E

    Tabone , B., van Hemert , M. C., van Dishoeck , E. F., & Black , J. H. 2021, , 650, A192

    2021

  71. [79]

    F., M \'e nard , F., Meeus , G., et al

    Thi , W. F., M \'e nard , F., Meeus , G., et al. 2011, , 530, L2

    2011

  72. [80]

    2024, , 687, A86

    Van De Putte , D., Meshaka , R., Trahin , B., et al. 2024, , 687, A86

    2024

  73. [81]

    van der Tak , F. F. S., Nagy , Z., Ossenkopf , V., et al. 2013, , 560, A95

    2013

  74. [82]

    R., et al

    Veselinova , A., Ag \'u ndez , M., Goicoechea , J. R., et al. 2021, , 648, A76

    2021

  75. [83]

    F., Morong , C

    Wang , H., Neese , C. F., Morong , C. P., Kleshcheva , M., & Oka , T. 2013, Journal of Physical Chemistry A, 117, 9908

    2013

  76. [84]

    J., et al

    Wesson , R., Cernicharo , J., Barlow , M. J., et al. 2010, , 518, L144

    2010

  77. [85]

    & Merkt, F

    Willitsch, S. & Merkt, F. 2003, The Journal of chemical physics, 118, 2235

    2003

  78. [86]

    G., Vallini , L., & Chevance , M

    Wolfire , M. G., Vallini , L., & Chevance , M. 2022, , 60, 247

    2022

  79. [87]

    2013, , 766, 80

    Zanchet , A., Godard , B., Bulut , N., et al. 2013, , 766, 80

    2013

  80. [88]

    2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 577

    Zannese , M., Tabone , B., Habart , E., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 577

    2024

  81. [89]

    2023, , 671, A41

    Zannese , M., Tabone , B., Habart , E., et al. 2023, , 671, A41

    2023

  82. [90]

    Zhen , J., Castellanos , P., Linnartz , H., & Tielens , A. G. G. M. 2016, Molecular Astrophysics, 5, 1

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.