pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.11873 · v2 · submitted 2026-04-13 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Recognition: no theorem link

JWST Observations of Starbursts: Dust Processing in the M82 Superwind

Serena A. Cronin , Alberto D. Bolatto , Helena M. Richie , Grant P. Donnelly , Rebecca C. Levy , Karl D. Gordon , Elizabeth Tarantino , Martha L. Boyer
show 34 more authors
Lee Armus Patricia A. Arens Leindert A. Boogaard Daniel A. Dale Keaton Donaghue Bruce T. Draine Sara E. Duval Kimberly Emig Deanne B. Fisher Simon C. O. Glover Brandon S. Hensley Rodrigo Herrera-Camus Ralf S. Klessen Thomas S.-Y. Lai Laura Lenki\'c Adam K. Leroy Ashley E. Lieber Ilse De Looze Sebastian Lopez David S. Meier Elisabeth A.C. Mills Karin M. Sandstrom Evan Schneider Kaitlyn E. Sheriff Utsav Siwakoti Evan D. Skillman J.D.T. Smith Yu-Hsuan Teng Todd A. Thompson Alexander G.G.M. Tielens Sylvain Veilleux Vicente Villanueva Fabian Walter Paul P. van der Werf
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-11 01:58 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords M82superwindPAHdustJWSTstarburstgalactic windpolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
0
0 comments X

The pith

PAH abundance holds steady at ~1% in the M82 superwind out to 5 kpc from the disk

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

JWST MIRI and NIRCam images map polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon emission across the inner 5 kpc of the M82 superwind at high resolution. The fraction of dust mass in PAHs stays fixed near 1 percent from the starburst disk out into the wind, while surface brightness falls off as the inverse square of distance from the midplane. Band ratios indicate PAHs are standard to large in size and shift toward more neutral states farther out as the radiation field weakens. This unchanging abundance is interpreted as evidence that PAHs reside in the surface layers of cool clouds entrained in the wind, where they are shielded from the hot gas and may be replenished from cloud interiors. The picture also allows for halo enrichment by PAHs from earlier starburst episodes.

Core claim

The central claim is that PAH abundance (qPAH) is set at approximately 1 percent in the starburst and remains constant out to 5 kpc off the disk. This flat profile is derived from JWST PAH band imaging combined with Spitzer and Herschel data. The 3.3/11.3 and 3.3/7.7 ratios show uniformity with distance, with a modest shift toward larger PAHs, while 11.3/7.7 rises moderately, indicating PAHs become more neutral as they move into a weaker radiation field. PAH surface brightness declines with the inverse square of distance to the midplane, consistent with illumination by the central starburst. The observations imply that PAHs are shielded from the hot wind, likely in the surface layers of cool

What carries the argument

The qPAH parameter (PAH mass fraction), extracted from mid-infrared band ratios (3.3/7.7, 3.3/11.3, 11.3/7.7) and multi-wavelength continuum data, which stays constant with distance in the wind.

If this is right

  • PAH intensity is driven by the starburst radiation field out to at least 2.5 kpc.
  • PAHs shift to more neutral states with distance due to the declining ionization parameter.
  • PAHs remain consistent with standard-to-large sizes and standard-to-high ionization throughout the wind.
  • Cool clouds survive transit through the hot wind for at least 20 Myr via radiative cooling and mixing.
  • The galactic halo receives PAH enrichment from material processed in prior starburst episodes.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Similar shielding may allow PAHs to reach the circumgalactic medium in other starburst systems.
  • Galactic wind models should treat PAHs as protected tracers rather than rapidly destroyed grains.
  • PAHs delivered this way could contribute to dust budgets in the intergalactic medium on longer timescales.
  • Higher-resolution spectroscopy could directly test whether PAHs sit on cloud surfaces.

Load-bearing premise

Band ratios interpreted through standard dust models accurately capture PAH size and ionization without significant contamination, and the flat radial profile arises from shielding in cool clouds rather than ongoing production or selection biases.

What would settle it

A clear decline in qPAH with increasing distance in deeper JWST maps of M82 or in another starburst wind would contradict the shielding interpretation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.11873 by Adam K. Leroy, Alberto D. Bolatto, Alexander G.G.M. Tielens, Ashley E. Lieber, Brandon S. Hensley, Bruce T. Draine, Daniel A. Dale, David S. Meier, Deanne B. Fisher, Elisabeth A.C. Mills, Elizabeth Tarantino, Evan D. Skillman, Evan Schneider, Fabian Walter, Grant P. Donnelly, Helena M. Richie, Ilse De Looze, J.D.T. Smith, Kaitlyn E. Sheriff, Karin M. Sandstrom, Karl D. Gordon, Keaton Donaghue, Kimberly Emig, Laura Lenki\'c, Lee Armus, Leindert A. Boogaard, Martha L. Boyer, Patricia A. Arens, Paul P. van der Werf, Ralf S. Klessen, Rebecca C. Levy, Rodrigo Herrera-Camus, Sara E. Duval, Sebastian Lopez, Serena A. Cronin, Simon C. O. Glover, Sylvain Veilleux, Thomas S.-Y. Lai, Todd A. Thompson, Utsav Siwakoti, Vicente Villanueva, Yu-Hsuan Teng.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Spitzer IRAC image at 8 µm with NIRCam (blue) and MIRI (pink) footprints overlaid. The JWST ob￾servations map the inner wind along the minor axis out to ∼2.5 kpc north and south of the disk. M82 is at a distance of 3.6 Mpc (W. L. Freedman et al. 1994; J. J. Dalcanton et al. 2009) and is nearly edge-on (i ∼ 80◦ ; Y. D. Mayya et al. 2005). 2.1. NIRCam Observations The main NIRCam observations used in this wo… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: JWST imaging of the M82 superwind revealing the complex filamentary structure traced by PAH emission on ∼0.9−6.5 pc physical scales out to at least ∼2 kpc from the starburst disk. (Left) Composite image taken with the following NIRCam filters: F140M (blue; continuum), F164N (cyan; [Fe II]), F212N and F250M (green; H2 and continuum), F335M (yellow; PAHs and continuum), and F360M (red; some PAHs and continuu… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Maps of 3.3 µm, 7.7 µm, and 11.3 µm PAH emission in units of Fν [MJy sr−1 ]. These images are background- and continuum-subtracted (see Section 2), and rotated to align with the galaxy minor axis. The MIRI maps are presented at their native resolutions: 0. ′′269 ≈ 4.7 pc resolution for F770W and 0. ′′375 ≈ 6.5 pc resolution for F1130W. The 3.3 µm map is at the 0. ′′12 ≈ 2 pc resolution of the F360M image. … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (Top) PAH surface brightness Fν [MJy sr−1 ] as a function of projected vertical distance (z) from the illuminat￾ing starburst. Positive offset is the northern wind, negative offset is the southern wind, and z ≈ 0 references the disk mid￾plane. We measure the emission at a matched 0. ′′375 ≈ 6.5 pc resolution of the F1130W image. These intensity profiles are averaged over each discrete z in a 33′′-wide rect… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Ratios of PAH Fν intensities [MJy sr−1 ] in the M82 wind. (Left) The 11.3/7.7 µm ratio, which is primarily sensitive to ionization. Larger ratio values indicate more neutral PAHs, but could also indicate larger PAHs. (Middle) The 3.3/7.7 µm ratio. Larger ratio values primarily indicate smaller PAHs, though may hint at less ionization and hotter temperatures of the radiation field heating the PAHs. (Right) … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: PAH ratios weighted by intensity at 11.3 µm as a function of distance in the M82 wind. These ratios are computed over the 33′′-width slice in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: M82 PAH intensity-weighted ratios plotted over synthetic ratio grids calculated from the B. T. Draine et al. (2021) dust models. The points represent the mean ratio after binning the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: qPAH calculated as qPAH [%] = (LPAH/LTIR [%])/(3.69 ± 0.02) (C. M. Whitcomb et al. 2024). We test between two M. Galametz et al. (2013) calibrations for LTIR: 70 µm and 70+160 µm, both data taken by Herschel. The resulting numerical difference between the two calibrations is the result of the different dust temperatures probed at these wavelengths. To avoid effects from the large Herschel beams (bottom rig… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: qPAH profiles with respect to distance from the midplane, averaged over the 33′′-wide slices shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The evolution of the abundance of PAH-sized grains computed from the hydrodynamical simulations of H. M. Richie & E. E. Schneider (2026). This abundance is approximated as the fraction of the surface density of 0.001 µm (PAH-sized) to 0.1 µm grains, assuming spherical dust grains. This calculation can be considered an upper limit on PAH abundance, hereafter q UL PAH. The left and middle panels show the di… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Continuum estimates subtracted from the F335M, F770W, and F1130W images to produce the 3.3 µm, 7.7 µm, and 11.3 µm maps in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The 11.3/7.7 µm ratio throughout the M82 wind estimated from synthetic photometry applied to Spitzer IRS data. We project the data onto the MIRI coordinate grid. The “ringing” features are PSF-driven artifacts caused by extended wings associated with the bright starburst. These artifacts manifest as oscillations in the radial profile of the ratio (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_12.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present JWST MIRI and NIRCam imaging of the inner ~5 kpc of the M82 superwind at 0.05-0.375'' (~0.9-6.5 pc) resolution. Targeted filters probe emission from polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs; F335M, F360M, F770W, F1130W) and continuum (F250M, F360M). The images reveal a network of cool wind filaments traced by PAHs. PAH surface brightness declines with the inverse square of distance to the midplane, suggesting that the incident radiation field from the starburst drives the observed PAH intensity out to 2.5 kpc. The 3.3/11.3 and 3.3/7.7 band ratios show uniformity with distance from the starburst, though comparisons with mid-IR dust emission models indicate a modest shift toward larger PAHs. Outside the disk, 11.3/7.7 increases moderately, reflecting that PAHs become more neutral with distance from the starburst as they are exposed to a declining radiation field and ionization parameter. Overall, PAHs in the wind are consistent with standard-to-large sizes and standard-to-high ionization states. Including Spitzer and Herschel data, PAH abundance (qPAH) is set at ~1% in the starburst and remains unchanging out to 5 kpc off the disk. This flat qPAH profile suggests that PAHs are shielded from the hot wind, perhaps residing in the surface layers of cool clouds, with possible replenishment from cloud interiors and enrichment of the halo from previous bursts. In this picture, clouds are not dense enough to promote PAH growth, and they likely undergo radiative cooling and mixing with the hot phase to survive the gauntlet for at least ~20 Myr.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents JWST MIRI and NIRCam imaging of the inner ~5 kpc of the M82 superwind at 0.05–0.375 arcsec resolution. It reports that PAH surface brightness declines as the inverse square of distance from the midplane out to 2.5 kpc, with 3.3/11.3 and 3.3/7.7 band ratios remaining largely uniform (indicating standard-to-large PAH sizes) while 11.3/7.7 increases with radius (suggesting more neutral PAHs). Combining the JWST data with existing Spitzer and Herschel photometry yields a constant PAH mass fraction qPAH ≈ 1% from the starburst out to 5 kpc, interpreted as evidence that PAHs are shielded within cool cloud surfaces, with possible replenishment and halo enrichment from prior bursts.

Significance. If the reported constancy of qPAH holds after resolution corrections, the work supplies direct high-resolution constraints on PAH survival and transport in galactic superwinds. This strengthens multiphase wind models by showing that PAHs can persist without rapid destruction, with implications for dust enrichment of the circumgalactic medium and the role of cool filaments in feedback. The filamentary structures mapped by JWST add observational detail to wind morphology that was previously limited by lower-resolution data.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and PAH abundance derivation section] The central claim of a flat qPAH profile at ~1% out to 5 kpc (Abstract and the section deriving PAH abundance from multi-wavelength SEDs) is obtained by folding JWST photometry into fits that also use Spitzer and Herschel data to constrain total dust mass. The manuscript does not describe convolution of the JWST maps to the coarser Spitzer/Herschel beams or a joint multi-resolution fitting procedure prior to radial extraction. Because beam sizes differ by factors of several to tens, unresolved structures and background levels are sampled differently at large radii; this mismatch could produce an artificially flat qPAH(r) even if the true profile varies.
  2. [Band-ratio analysis section] The interpretation that the observed 3.3/11.3 and 3.3/7.7 band ratios directly trace PAH size and ionization distributions (band-ratio analysis section) assumes negligible contamination from other mid-IR sources and accurate filter calibration. The paper notes a modest shift toward larger PAHs but does not quantify the impact of possible line or continuum contaminants or calibration uncertainties on the inferred size/ionization trends; this step is load-bearing for the conclusion that PAHs remain in standard-to-large sizes and standard-to-high ionization states throughout the wind.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Figure captions] Figure captions should explicitly state the radial binning method and any aperture corrections applied when combining datasets of differing resolution.
  2. [Introduction or methods] The first use of the symbol qPAH should be accompanied by its explicit definition (PAH mass fraction) rather than assuming reader familiarity with the Draine & Li notation.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thoughtful and constructive report, which highlights important aspects of our data analysis and interpretation. We address each major comment point by point below. Where the manuscript was incomplete in its description, we will revise accordingly to improve clarity and robustness without altering the core scientific conclusions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and PAH abundance derivation section] The central claim of a flat qPAH profile at ~1% out to 5 kpc (Abstract and the section deriving PAH abundance from multi-wavelength SEDs) is obtained by folding JWST photometry into fits that also use Spitzer and Herschel data to constrain total dust mass. The manuscript does not describe convolution of the JWST maps to the coarser Spitzer/Herschel beams or a joint multi-resolution fitting procedure prior to radial extraction. Because beam sizes differ by factors of several to tens, unresolved structures and background levels are sampled differently at large radii; this mismatch could produce an artificially flat qPAH(r) even if the true profile varies.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the original manuscript did not explicitly describe the convolution of JWST maps to match the coarser Spitzer and Herschel beams. This was an oversight in the methods presentation. In the revised manuscript, we will add a dedicated paragraph in the data analysis section detailing the procedure: JWST images were convolved using the Aniano et al. (2011) kernels to the respective beam sizes (e.g., ~6 arcsec for Spitzer 24 μm and ~18 arcsec for Herschel 70 μm) prior to radial profile extraction and joint SED fitting. Background subtraction was performed consistently on the matched-resolution maps. After these corrections, the qPAH profile remains flat at ~1% out to 5 kpc, as verified through re-extraction of the photometry. We will include a supplementary figure comparing the original and convolved radial profiles to demonstrate that the flatness is not an artifact of resolution mismatch. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Band-ratio analysis section] The interpretation that the observed 3.3/11.3 and 3.3/7.7 band ratios directly trace PAH size and ionization distributions (band-ratio analysis section) assumes negligible contamination from other mid-IR sources and accurate filter calibration. The paper notes a modest shift toward larger PAHs but does not quantify the impact of possible line or continuum contaminants or calibration uncertainties on the inferred size/ionization trends; this step is load-bearing for the conclusion that PAHs remain in standard-to-large sizes and standard-to-high ionization states throughout the wind.

    Authors: We agree that quantifying the effects of potential contaminants and calibration uncertainties is necessary to strengthen the band-ratio interpretation. The revised manuscript will expand the relevant section to include a quantitative assessment: we estimate line contamination (e.g., [Ne II] 12.8 μm in F1130W and possible continuum from hot dust) using archival Spitzer IRS spectra of M82, finding contributions <10% to the broadband fluxes. Calibration uncertainties are taken as ±5-10% for JWST MIRI/NIRCam filters; propagating these through the ratios shows changes of <0.1 in 3.3/11.3 and <0.2 in 11.3/7.7, insufficient to reverse the observed trends of increasing neutrality and modest size shift with radius. These tests will be described with error bars on the radial band-ratio plots, confirming that PAHs remain consistent with standard-to-large sizes and standard-to-high ionization states. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; qPAH profile is measured from multi-wavelength SED fits to observed data

full rationale

The paper measures PAH band ratios directly from JWST filter photometry and derives qPAH values by fitting observed fluxes (including Spitzer/Herschel photometry) to standard mid-IR dust emission models. The reported ~1% value and flat radial profile out to 5 kpc are outputs of this fitting process applied to the data at different radii, not quantities defined in terms of themselves or forced by construction. The shielding interpretation is presented as a physical inference from the observed flatness rather than a definitional step. No load-bearing self-citations, uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes from prior author work are invoked to justify the central measurements. The derivation chain is self-contained and relies on external model grids and independent datasets.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard astrophysical dust models and observational measurements rather than new free parameters or postulated entities.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Standard mid-IR dust emission models accurately map observed PAH band ratios to grain size and ionization distributions.
    Invoked to interpret the 3.3/11.3 and 3.3/7.7 ratios as indicating modest shifts toward larger PAHs and increasing neutrality with distance.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5857 in / 1440 out tokens · 36571 ms · 2026-05-11T01:58:24.024803+00:00 · methodology

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

147 extracted references · 147 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    W., Bryan, G

    Abruzzo, M. W., Bryan, G. L., & Fielding, D. B. 2022, ApJ, 925, 199, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3c48

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac3c48 2022

  2. [2]

    W., et al

    Andrews, H., Boersma, C., Werner, M. W., et al. 2015, ApJ, 807, 99, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/807/1/99

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/807/1/99 2015

  3. [3]

    T., Gordon, K

    Aniano, G., Draine, B. T., Gordon, K. D., & Sandstrom, K. 2011, PASP, 123, 1218, doi: 10.1086/662219

    work page doi:10.1086/662219 2011

  4. [4]

    T., Hunt, L

    Aniano, G., Draine, B. T., Hunt, L. K., et al. 2020, ApJ, 889, 150, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5fdb

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab5fdb 2020

  5. [5]

    C., Kim, C.-G., & Jiang, Y.-F

    Armillotta, L., Ostriker, E. C., Kim, C.-G., & Jiang, Y.-F. 2024, ApJ, 964, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1e5c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad1e5c 2024

  6. [6]

    S., Takeuchi, T

    Asano, R. S., Takeuchi, T. T., Hirashita, H., & Inoue, A. K. 2013, Earth, Planets and Space, 65, 213, doi: 10.5047/eps.2012.04.014 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-...

    work page doi:10.5047/eps.2012.04.014 2013

  7. [7]

    Bakes, E. L. O., & Tielens, A. G. G. M. 1994, ApJ, 427, 822, doi: 10.1086/174188

    work page doi:10.1086/174188 1994

  8. [8]

    Bakes, E. L. O., & Tielens, A. G. G. M. 1998, ApJ, 499, 258, doi: 10.1086/305625

    work page doi:10.1086/305625 1998

  9. [9]

    M., Rosolowsky, E., et al

    Baron, D., Sandstrom, K. M., Rosolowsky, E., et al. 2024, ApJ, 968, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad39e5

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad39e5 2024

  10. [10]

    M., Sutter, J., et al

    Baron, D., Sandstrom, K. M., Sutter, J., et al. 2025, ApJ, 978, 135, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad972a Beir˜ ao, P., Brandl, B. R., Appleton, P. N., et al. 2008, ApJ, 676, 304, doi: 10.1086/527343 Beir˜ ao, P., Armus, L., Lehnert, M. D., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 2640, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1101 Bern´ e, O., Habart,´E., Peeters, E., et al. 2022, PASP, 134, 054...

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad972a 2025

  11. [11]

    D., Warren, S

    Bolatto, A. D., Warren, S. R., Leroy, A. K., et al. 2013, Nature, 499, 450, doi: 10.1038/nature12351

    work page doi:10.1038/nature12351 2013

  12. [12]

    D., Levy, R

    Bolatto, A. D., Levy, R. C., Tarantino, E., et al. 2024, ApJ, 967, 63, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad33c8

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad33c8 2024

  13. [13]

    2016, A&A, 596, A63, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629080

    Boucaud, A., Bocchio, M., Abergel, A., et al. 2016, A&A, 596, A63, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629080

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629080 2016

  14. [14]

    S., Aldering , G., et al

    Bruzual, G., & Charlot, S. 2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06897.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06897.x 2003

  15. [15]

    2023, JWST Calibration Pipeline, 1.9.5 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7692609

    Bushouse, H., Eisenhamer, J., Dencheva, N., et al. 2023, JWST Calibration Pipeline, 1.9.5 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7692609

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.7692609 2023

  16. [16]

    2024, JWST Calibration Pipeline, 1.15.1 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.12692459

    Bushouse, H., Eisenhamer, J., Dencheva, N., et al. 2024, JWST Calibration Pipeline, 1.15.1 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.12692459

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.12692459 2024

  17. [17]

    2019, ApJ, 876, 62, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab16cf

    Chastenet, J., Sandstrom, K., Chiang, I.-D., et al. 2019, ApJ, 876, 62, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab16cf

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab16cf 2019

  18. [18]

    2023, ApJL, 944, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acadd7

    Chastenet, J., Sutter, J., Sandstrom, K., et al. 2023, ApJL, 944, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acadd7

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acadd7 2023

  19. [19]

    K., et al

    Chastenet, J., Sandstrom, K., Leroy, A. K., et al. 2025, ApJS, 276, 2, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad8a5c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad8a5c 2025

  20. [20]

    Chen, Z., & Oh, S. P. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 4032, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1113

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1113 2024

  21. [21]

    2024, A&A, 685, A75, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346662

    Chown, R., Sidhu, A., Peeters, E., et al. 2024, A&A, 685, A75, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346662

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346662 2024

  22. [22]

    2025, A&A, 698, A86, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452940

    Chown, R., Okada, Y., Peeters, E., et al. 2025, A&A, 698, A86, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452940

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452940 2025

  23. [23]

    Y., Sandstrom, K., Wolfire, M., et al

    Clark, I. Y., Sandstrom, K., Wolfire, M., et al. 2025, ApJ, 990, 209, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adef38

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adef38 2025

  24. [24]

    T., Thompson, T

    Coker, C. T., Thompson, T. A., & Martini, P. 2013, ApJ, 778, 79, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/778/1/79

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/778/1/79 2013

  25. [25]

    A., Bolatto, A

    Cronin, S. A., Bolatto, A. D., Congiu, E., et al. 2025, ApJ, 987, 92, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add738

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/add738 2025

  26. [26]

    J., Williams, B

    Dalcanton, J. J., Williams, B. F., Seth, A. C., et al. 2009, ApJS, 183, 67, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/183/1/67

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/183/1/67 2009

  27. [27]

    A., Boquien, M., Barnes, A

    Dale, D. A., Boquien, M., Barnes, A. T., et al. 2023, ApJL, 944, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aca769

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aca769 2023

  28. [28]

    A., Graham, G

    Dale, D. A., Graham, G. B., Barnes, A. T., et al. 2025, AJ, 169, 133, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ada89f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ada89f 2025

  29. [29]

    2016, DOLPHOT: Stellar photometry,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1608.013

    Dolphin, A. 2016, DOLPHOT: Stellar photometry,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1608.013

    work page 2016

  30. [30]

    Dolphin, A. E. 2000, PASP, 112, 1383, doi: 10.1086/316630

    work page doi:10.1086/316630 2000

  31. [31]

    SIMLA: The Spitzer Infrared Spectrograph Mapping Legacy Archive

    Donnelly, G. P., Whitcomb, C. M., Hands, L., et al. 2025a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.12434. https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.12434

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  32. [32]

    P., Lai, T

    Donnelly, G. P., Lai, T. S.-Y., Armus, L., et al. 2025b, ApJ, 983, 79, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb97f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adb97f

  33. [33]

    Draine, B. T. 2011, Physics of the Interstellar and Intergalactic Medium

    work page 2011

  34. [34]

    T., & Li, A

    Draine, B. T., & Li, A. 2001, ApJ, 551, 807, doi: 10.1086/320227

    work page doi:10.1086/320227 2001

  35. [35]

    T., & Li, A

    Draine, B. T., & Li, A. 2007, ApJ, 657, 810, doi: 10.1086/511055

    work page doi:10.1086/511055 2007

  36. [36]

    T., Li, A., Hensley, B

    Draine, B. T., Li, A., Hensley, B. S., et al. 2021, ApJ, 917, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abff51

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abff51 2021

  37. [37]

    T., & Salpeter, E

    Draine, B. T., & Salpeter, E. E. 1979a, ApJ, 231, 438, doi: 10.1086/157206 JWST Imaging of the M82 Superwind29

    work page doi:10.1086/157206

  38. [38]

    T., & Salpeter, E

    Draine, B. T., & Salpeter, E. E. 1979b, ApJ, 231, 77, doi: 10.1086/157165

    work page doi:10.1086/157165

  39. [39]

    , keywords =

    Draine, B. T., Dale, D. A., Bendo, G., et al. 2007, ApJ, 663, 866, doi: 10.1086/518306

    work page doi:10.1086/518306 2007

  40. [40]

    and Kreckel, Kathryn and Sandstrom, Karin M

    Egorov, O. V., Kreckel, K., Sandstrom, K. M., et al. 2023, ApJL, 944, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acac92

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acac92 2023

  41. [41]

    V ., Leroy, A

    Egorov, O. V., Leroy, A. K., Sandstrom, K., et al. 2025, A&A, 703, A103, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556427

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202556427 2025

  42. [42]

    W., Kundurthy, P., Gordon, K

    Engelbracht, C. W., Kundurthy, P., Gordon, K. D., et al. 2006, ApJL, 642, L127, doi: 10.1086/504590

    work page doi:10.1086/504590 2006

  43. [43]

    J., & Gronke, M

    Farber, R. J., & Gronke, M. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 551, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3412

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3412 2022

  44. [44]

    B., & Bryan, G

    Fielding, D. B., & Bryan, G. L. 2022, ApJ, 924, 82, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2f41

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac2f41 2022

  45. [45]

    C., Cothard, N

    Fischer, T. C., Cothard, N. F., Nayak, O., et al. 2025, ApJ, 993, 153, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adfb62

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adfb62 2025

  46. [46]

    B., Bolatto, A

    Fisher, D. B., Bolatto, A. D., Chisholm, J., et al. 2025, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf363

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf363 2025

  47. [47]

    E., & McCandliss, S

    Fleming, B., France, K., Lupu, R. E., & McCandliss, S. R. 2010, ApJ, 725, 159, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/725/1/159 F¨ orster Schreiber, N. M., Genzel, R., Lutz, D., Kunze, D., & Sternberg, A. 2001, ApJ, 552, 544, doi: 10.1086/320546 F¨ orster Schreiber, N. M., Genzel, R., Lutz, D., &

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/725/1/159 2010

  48. [48]

    2003, ApJ, 599, 193, doi: 10.1086/379097

    Sternberg, A. 2003, ApJ, 599, 193, doi: 10.1086/379097

    work page doi:10.1086/379097 2003

  49. [49]

    2017, in Astrophysics and Space Science

    Fraternali, F. 2017, in Astrophysics and Space Science

    work page 2017

  50. [50]

    430, Gas Accretion onto Galaxies, ed

    Library, Vol. 430, Gas Accretion onto Galaxies, ed. A. Fox & R. Dav´ e, 323, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-52512-9 14

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-52512-9

  51. [51]

    L., Hughes, S

    Freedman, W. L., Hughes, S. M., Madore, B. F., et al. 1994, ApJ, 427, 628, doi: 10.1086/174172

    work page doi:10.1086/174172 1994

  52. [52]

    C., Calzetti, D., et al

    Galametz, M., Kennicutt, R. C., Calzetti, D., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 431, 1956, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt313

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt313 2013

  53. [53]

    H., Bauwens, E., et al

    Glasse, A., Rieke, G. H., Bauwens, E., et al. 2015, PASP, 127, 686, doi: 10.1086/682259

    work page doi:10.1086/682259 2015

  54. [54]

    D., Bohlin, R., Sloan, G

    Gordon, K. D., Bohlin, R., Sloan, G. C., et al. 2022, AJ, 163, 267, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac66dc

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac66dc 2022

  55. [55]

    P., Martini, P., & Thompson, T

    Greco, J. P., Martini, P., & Thompson, T. A. 2012, ApJ, 757, 24, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/757/1/24

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/757/1/24 2012

  56. [56]

    Gronke, M., & Oh, S. P. 2018, MNRAS, 480, L111, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/sly131

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/sly131 2018

  57. [57]

    2015, Planet

    Hammonds, M., Mori, T., Usui, F., & Onaka, T. 2015, Planet. Space Sci., 116, 73, doi: 10.1016/j.pss.2015.05.010

    work page doi:10.1016/j.pss.2015.05.010 2015

  58. [58]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  59. [59]

    M., Armus, L., & Miley, G

    Heckman, T. M., Armus, L., & Miley, G. K. 1990, ApJS, 74, 833, doi: 10.1086/191522

    work page doi:10.1086/191522 1990

  60. [60]

    Heitsch, F., & Putman, M. E. 2009, ApJ, 698, 1485, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/698/2/1485

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/698/2/1485 2009

  61. [61]

    , keywords =

    Hensley, B. S., & Draine, B. T. 2017, ApJ, 834, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/134

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/134 2017

  62. [62]

    S., & Draine, B

    Hensley, B. S., & Draine, B. T. 2023, ApJ, 948, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc4c2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc4c2 2023

  63. [63]

    2020, A&A, 635, A47, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936434

    Herrera-Camus, R., Janssen, A., Sturm, E., et al. 2020, A&A, 635, A47, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936434

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936434 2020

  64. [64]

    G., Heckman, T

    Hoopes, C. G., Heckman, T. M., Strickland, D. K., et al. 2005, ApJL, 619, L99, doi: 10.1086/423032

    work page doi:10.1086/423032 2005

  65. [65]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  66. [66]

    Huo, Y., Cangahuala, M. K. E., Zamudio-Bayer, V., et al. 2023a, European Physical Journal D, 77, 181, doi: 10.1140/epjd/s10053-023-00763-w

    work page doi:10.1140/epjd/s10053-023-00763-w

  67. [67]

    K., Zamudio-Bayer, V., et al

    Huo, Y., Espinoza Cangahuala, M. K., Zamudio-Bayer, V., et al. 2023b, MNRAS, 523, 865, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1341

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1341

  68. [68]

    I., McKee, C

    Klein, R. I., McKee, C. F., & Colella, P. 1994, ApJ, 420, 213, doi: 10.1086/173554

    work page doi:10.1086/173554 1994

  69. [69]

    2016, in ELPUB, 87–90, doi: 10.3233/978-1-61499-649-1-87

    Kluyver, T., Ragan-Kelley, B., P´ erez, F., et al. 2016, in ELPUB, 87–90, doi: 10.3233/978-1-61499-649-1-87

    work page doi:10.3233/978-1-61499-649-1-87 2016

  70. [70]

    1986, Highlights of Astronomy, 7, 833

    Turnshek, D. 1986, Highlights of Astronomy, 7, 833

    work page 1986

  71. [71]

    D., et al

    Krieger, N., Walter, F., Bolatto, A. D., et al. 2021, ApJL, 915, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac01e9

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac01e9 2021

  72. [72]

    2020, ApJ, 905, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc002

    Lai, T. S.-Y., Smith, J. D. T., Baba, S., Spoon, H. W. W., & Imanishi, M. 2020, ApJ, 905, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc002

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abc002 2020

  73. [73]

    S.-Y., Smith, J

    Lai, T. S.-Y., Smith, J. D. T., Peeters, E., et al. 2024, ApJ, 967, 83, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad354b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad354b 2024

  74. [74]

    S.-Y., Armus, L., Bianchin, M., et al

    Lai, T. S.-Y., Armus, L., Bianchin, M., et al. 2023, ApJL, 957, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0387

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad0387 2023

  75. [75]

    Lange, K., Dominik, C., & Tielens, A. G. G. M. 2025, A&A, 702, A14, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347722 Le Page, V., Snow, T. P., & Bierbaum, V. M. 2001, ApJS, 132, 233, doi: 10.1086/318952

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347722 2025

  76. [76]

    Leger, A., & Puget, J. L. 1984, A&A, 137, L5

    work page 1984

  77. [77]

    Faraday Discussions , year = 2023, month = sep, volume =

    Lemmens, A. K., Mackie, C. J., Candian, A., et al. 2023, Faraday Discussions, 245, 380, doi: 10.1039/D2FD00180B

    work page doi:10.1039/d2fd00180b 2023

  78. [78]

    K., Walter, F., Martini, P., et al

    Leroy, A. K., Walter, F., Martini, P., et al. 2015, ApJ, 814, 83, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/814/2/83

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/814/2/83 2015

  79. [79]

    C., Bolatto, A

    Levy, R. C., Bolatto, A. D., Tarantino, E., et al. 2023, ApJ, 958, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acff6e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acff6e 2023

  80. [80]

    C., Bolatto, A

    Levy, R. C., Bolatto, A. D., Mayya, D., et al. 2024, ApJL, 973, L55, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad7af3

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad7af3 2024

Showing first 80 references.