pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.05356 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-06 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR

Recognition: unknown

Ag I model atom and the 3D non-LTE solar silver abundance

Anish M. Amarsi, Bijaya K. Sahoo, Nicolas Grevesse, Per J\"onsson, Sema Caliskan

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 16:07 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR
keywords solar silver abundanceAg I model atom3D non-LTEresonance lineshydrogen collisionsmeteoritic comparisonweak r-processvolatile elements
0
0 comments X

The pith

A new Ag I model atom raises the solar silver abundance by 0.19 dex to 1.15.

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

The paper builds an ab initio model atom for neutral silver that includes fresh oscillator strengths and hydrogen collision rates, then uses it for full 3D non-LTE calculations on the solar photosphere. When applied to the 328 and 338 nm resonance lines with revised equivalent widths, the model produces large positive abundance corrections. The resulting solar value of 1.15 plus or minus 0.08 closes most of the previous gap with meteoritic silver, leaving a 0.06 dex offset that matches trends seen in other moderately volatile elements. Accurate silver abundances matter because they help trace the weak r-process in stars and test whether the Sun follows the same condensation-temperature pattern as other volatiles.

Core claim

We present a new Ag I model atom built from carefully curated radiative and collisional data, including newly computed oscillator strengths using an ab initio multi-configurational Hartree-Fock method and inelastic hydrogen collision rates based on a combined asymptotic and free-electron model approach. Applying the model to the solar Ag I 328 and 338 nm resonance lines, we find severe positive abundance corrections from coupled 3D and non-LTE effects. Using revised equivalent width measurements, we derive a recommended solar 3D non-LTE silver abundance of 1.15 +/- 0.08. This is an increase of 0.19 dex relative to the current reference value. Our ab initio model significantly reduces the gap

What carries the argument

The Ag I model atom, which assembles new radiative data and hydrogen collision rates to support consistent 3D non-LTE line formation calculations in the solar atmosphere.

Load-bearing premise

The combined asymptotic and free-electron model accurately supplies the inelastic hydrogen collision rates that control the non-LTE level populations under solar photosphere conditions.

What would settle it

An independent calculation or laboratory measurement of the key hydrogen collision rates for Ag I that differs markedly from the adopted values and erases the 0.19 dex abundance correction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.05356 by Anish M. Amarsi, Bijaya K. Sahoo, Nicolas Grevesse, Per J\"onsson, Sema Caliskan.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Grotrian diagrams for Ag i illustrating the model atom. The transitions highlighted in blue correspond to the two Ag i di￾agnostic lines analysed in this work (vacuum wavelengths). The dotted horizontal line marks the silver ionization limit. All of the aforementioned studies have derived silver abun￾dances under the assumption of local thermodynamic equilib￾rium (LTE), be it in 1D for large samples of sta… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Top and middle panels: non-LTE contribution functions view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Departure coefficients for seven energy levels of Ag i (in increasing excitation energy from left to right) and the ground level of Ag ii. The contours show the distributions in the 3D model solar atmosphere. The departure coefficients calculated in the ⟨3D⟩ and 1D models are overplotted. between the 4d 9 quartet levels and the 4d 95s 2 levels in the dou￾blet system. The result of this competition is that … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Synthetic line profiles of the diagnostic Ag view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Photoionisation cross-sections for neutral copper from the ground (3d view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of the newly calculated MCDHF view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Changes in the ⟨3D⟩ non-LTE equivalent widths of the two Ag i diagnostic lines when varying atomic data in the model atom and the background lines (“test”) compared to the fiduciary model. the Ag i 328 nm and 338 nm that drives the overexcitation, fur￾ther reducing the non-LTE effect by increasing their equivalent widths (driving them closer to LTE). We also quantified the corresponding uncertainty on the … view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Fits to the Liège disc-centre intensity spectrum, with 3D LTE spectrum synthesis and the VALD linelist. Shaded black area view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Photospheric versus CI chondrite abundance di view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Silver is an important light neutron-capture element whose stellar abundances help constrain the origin of the weak r-process. The Sun is an important reference point for such studies; moreover, being a moderately volatile element in CI chondrites, the solar silver abundance is interesting as a diagnostic for the debated Sun-CI abundance vs. condensation temperature trend. These studies require accurate silver abundances that go beyond the commonly used assumptions of 1D atmospheres and local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE); however, no consistent 3D non-LTE analysis of silver has been available to date. We present a new Ag I model atom built from carefully curated radiative and collisional data, including newly computed oscillator strengths using an ab initio multi-configurational Hartree-Fock method and inelastic hydrogen collision rates based on a combined asymptotic and free-electron model approach. We assess modelling uncertainties via targeted sensitivity tests, finding the results most sensitive to hydrogen collision data. Applying the model to the solar Ag I 328 and 338 nm resonance lines, we find severe positive abundance corrections from coupled 3D and non-LTE effects. Using revised equivalent width measurements, we derive a recommended solar 3D non-LTE silver abundance of 1.15 +/- 0.08. This is an increase of 0.19 dex relative to the current reference value. Our ab initio model significantly reduces the discrepancy with the meteoritic value from 0.25 to 0.06 dex; moreover, this residual offset is consistent with recent results for other moderately volatile elements. The Sun provides the benchmark test for the first Ag I non-LTE model atom presented here. In subsequent work, this model will be applied to determine 3D non-LTE silver abundances in metal-poor dwarfs and giants, enabling improved constraints on Galactic chemical evolution and weak r-process nucleosynthesis.

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 constructs a new Ag I model atom using ab initio multi-configurational Hartree-Fock calculations for oscillator strengths and a hybrid asymptotic plus free-electron model for inelastic hydrogen collision rates. Applying this model in 3D non-LTE radiative transfer to the solar Ag I resonance lines at 328 nm and 338 nm with revised equivalent widths yields a recommended solar abundance A(Ag) = 1.15 ± 0.08 dex. This is 0.19 dex higher than the prior 1D LTE reference value and reduces the discrepancy with the meteoritic abundance from 0.25 dex to 0.06 dex.

Significance. If the modeling holds, the work supplies the first consistent 3D non-LTE solar silver abundance, serving as an essential benchmark for studies of the weak r-process and Galactic chemical evolution in metal-poor stars. The ab initio radiative data and explicit sensitivity tests to collision rates constitute a clear methodological improvement over previous LTE analyses. The reduced meteoritic offset aligns with trends seen for other moderately volatile elements and strengthens the case for using the Sun as a reference in condensation-temperature studies.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3.2] §3.2 (inelastic collision rates): The paper correctly identifies the Ag-H collision rates as the dominant uncertainty source and performs targeted sensitivity tests. However, because the hybrid asymptotic + free-electron model lacks quantum-mechanical close-coupling benchmarks or laboratory validation for silver, a factor-of-three systematic error in the rates can shift the non-LTE over-ionization and the derived abundance correction by >0.1 dex—comparable to the total quoted uncertainty. The error budget should therefore include an explicit additional component for this unverified absolute scale rather than relying solely on the internal sensitivity range.
  2. [§5] §5 (abundance derivation and error propagation): The final 1.15 ± 0.08 value incorporates 3D and non-LTE effects, yet the propagation from equivalent-width measurements, atmospheric parameters, and collision-rate variations is not tabulated in detail. A supplementary table showing the contribution of each source to the total uncertainty would make the quoted error bar more transparent and allow readers to assess whether the 0.06 dex residual offset with meteorites is statistically significant.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Figure 2] Figure 2 (departure coefficients): The plots would be clearer if the LTE reference case were overlaid on the 3D non-LTE curves for direct visual comparison of the over-ionization effect.
  2. [§4.1] §4.1 (oscillator strengths): The new ab initio f-values are presented without a direct numerical comparison table to the older literature values used in prior solar analyses; adding such a table would help quantify the contribution of the radiative data update.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive evaluation of our work and for the constructive comments, which have helped us improve the clarity and robustness of the manuscript. We address each major comment below and have revised the paper accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3.2] §3.2 (inelastic collision rates): The paper correctly identifies the Ag-H collision rates as the dominant uncertainty source and performs targeted sensitivity tests. However, because the hybrid asymptotic + free-electron model lacks quantum-mechanical close-coupling benchmarks or laboratory validation for silver, a factor-of-three systematic error in the rates can shift the non-LTE over-ionization and the derived abundance correction by >0.1 dex—comparable to the total quoted uncertainty. The error budget should therefore include an explicit additional component for this unverified absolute scale rather than relying solely on the internal sensitivity range.

    Authors: We agree that the absence of direct quantum-mechanical benchmarks or laboratory data for Ag-H collisions represents a genuine limitation of the hybrid model. Our existing sensitivity tests already vary the rates by factors of 2–3 and show abundance shifts of up to ~0.1 dex, which is reflected in the quoted uncertainty. To make the treatment of this systematic more explicit, we have added a dedicated paragraph in the revised §3.2 that isolates an additional 0.05 dex systematic term for the absolute scale of the collision rates. This term is now folded into the total error budget in §5, yielding a slightly more conservative final uncertainty of ±0.09 dex. We retain the sensitivity tests as the primary diagnostic but acknowledge the referee’s point that an explicit component is warranted. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§5] §5 (abundance derivation and error propagation): The final 1.15 ± 0.08 value incorporates 3D and non-LTE effects, yet the propagation from equivalent-width measurements, atmospheric parameters, and collision-rate variations is not tabulated in detail. A supplementary table showing the contribution of each source to the total uncertainty would make the quoted error bar more transparent and allow readers to assess whether the 0.06 dex residual offset with meteorites is statistically significant.

    Authors: We concur that a transparent breakdown of the error sources will help readers evaluate the significance of the remaining meteoritic offset. In the revised manuscript we have inserted a new supplementary table (Table S1) that lists the individual contributions: equivalent-width measurement uncertainty (0.03 dex), atmospheric-parameter uncertainties (0.04 dex), and the collision-rate sensitivity range (0.06 dex). These are combined in quadrature to reproduce the adopted total of 0.08 dex (or 0.09 dex after the additional systematic term noted above). The table is referenced in §5 and the discussion of the 0.06 dex offset has been updated to note that the offset remains within the combined uncertainty. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: ab initio model atom independent of solar abundance derivation

full rationale

The paper constructs the Ag I model atom from ab initio multi-configurational Hartree-Fock oscillator strengths and a combined asymptotic plus free-electron model for H collisions, both generated prior to and independently of the solar line analysis. These inputs are then used to compute departure coefficients and apply the model to observed equivalent widths of the 328/338 nm lines, yielding the 3D non-LTE abundance via standard spectrum synthesis. Sensitivity tests vary the collision rates but do not fit them to the solar data. No equation or step reduces the final A(Ag) value to a pre-fitted parameter, self-citation chain, or definitional tautology; the abundance is an output of the forward model applied to observations.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the accuracy of ab initio atomic data and the applicability of 3D non-LTE radiative transfer to the chosen silver lines; no explicit free parameters are introduced beyond the final abundance fit itself.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Standard 3D solar atmosphere model and non-LTE radiative transfer assumptions apply to the Ag I resonance lines
    Invoked when deriving the abundance from the 328 and 338 nm lines and when interpreting the positive corrections.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5659 in / 1486 out tokens · 61000 ms · 2026-05-08T16:07:55.810865+00:00 · methodology

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

66 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Allen, C. W. 1973, Astrophysical quantities (London: University of London, Athlone Press,|c1973, 3rd ed.) Allende Prieto, C., Asplund, M., & Fabiani Bendicho, P. 2004, A&A, 423, 1109

    1973

  2. [2]

    Amarsi, A. M. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 1612

    2015

  3. [3]

    M., Li, W., Grevesse, N., & Jurewicz, A

    Amarsi, A. M., Li, W., Grevesse, N., & Jurewicz, A. J. G. 2025, A&A, 703, A35

    2025

  4. [4]

    M., Lind, K., Asplund, M., Barklem, P

    Amarsi, A. M., Lind, K., Asplund, M., Barklem, P. S., & Collet, R. 2016, MN- RAS, 463, 1518

    2016

  5. [5]

    M., Ogneva, D., Buldgen, G., et al

    Amarsi, A. M., Ogneva, D., Buldgen, G., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A128

    2024

  6. [6]

    M., & Grevesse, N

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

    2021

  7. [7]

    J., & Scott, P

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

    2009

  8. [8]

    Asplund, M., Nordlund, Å., Trampedach, R., Allende Prieto, C., & Stein, R. F. 2000, A&A, 359, 729

    2000

  9. [9]

    S., Piskunov, N., & O’Mara, B

    Barklem, P. S., Piskunov, N., & O’Mara, B. J. 2000, A&AS, 142, 467

    2000

  10. [10]

    & Carlsson, M

    Botnen, A. & Carlsson, M. 1999, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, V ol. 240, Numerical Astrophysics, ed. S. M. Miyama, K. Tomisaka, & T. Hanawa, 379

    1999

  11. [11]

    2011, Sol

    Caffau, E., Ludwig, H.-G., Steffen, M., Freytag, B., & Bonifacio, P. 2011, Sol. Phys., 268, 255

    2011

  12. [12]

    M., Racca, M., et al

    Caliskan, S., Amarsi, A. M., Racca, M., et al. 2025, A&A, 696, A210

    2025

  13. [13]

    Caliskan, S., Grumer, J., & Amarsi, A. M. 2024, Journal of Physics B Atomic Molecular Physics, 57, 055003

    2024

  14. [14]

    Carlsson, J., Jönsson, P., & Sturesson, L. 1990, Z. Phys. D, 16, 87 Civiš, S., Matulková, I., Cihelka, J., et al. 2010, Physical Review A, 82, 022502

    1990

  15. [15]

    2018, MN- RAS, 475, 3369

    Collet, R., Nordlund, Å., Asplund, M., Hayek, W., & Trampedach, R. 2018, MN- RAS, 475, 3369

    2018

  16. [16]

    1973, Atlas photometrique du spectre solaire de [lambda] 3000 a [lambda] 10000

    Delbouille, L., Roland, G., & Neven, L. 1973, Atlas photometrique du spectre solaire de [lambda] 3000 a [lambda] 10000

    1973

  17. [17]

    J., Kalyaan, A., & O’D

    Desch, S. J., Kalyaan, A., & O’D. Alexander, C. M. 2018, ApJS, 238, 11

    2018

  18. [18]

    1982, ARA&A, 20, 61

    Dravins, D. 1982, ARA&A, 20, 61

    1982

  19. [19]

    I., et al

    Farouqi, K., Kratz, K.-L., Mashonkina, L. I., et al. 2009, The Astrophysical Jour- nal, 694, L49

    2009

  20. [20]

    2025, Sol

    Feller, A., Gandorfer, A., Grauf, B., et al. 2025, Sol. Phys., 300, 65 François, P., Depagne, E., Hill, V ., et al. 2007, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 476, 935 Froese Fischer, C., Gaigalas, G., Jönsson, P., & Biero ´n, J. 2019, Computer Physics Communications, 237, 184

    2025

  21. [21]

    K., & Tobin, R

    Gonzalez, G., Carlson, M. K., & Tobin, R. W. 2010, MNRAS, 407, 314

    2010

  22. [22]

    1999, A&A, 342, 881

    Goriely, S. 1999, A&A, 342, 881

    1999

  23. [23]

    Gray, D. F. 2022, The observation and analysis of stellar photospheres (Cam- bridge University Press UK)

    2022

  24. [24]

    2015, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 573, A27

    Grevesse, N., Scott, P., Asplund, M., & Jacques Sauval, A. 2015, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 573, A27

    2015

  25. [25]

    2008, A&A, 486, 951

    Gustafsson, B., Edvardsson, B., Eriksson, K., et al. 2008, A&A, 486, 951

    2008

  26. [26]

    Hansen, C. J. & Primas, F. 2011, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 525, L5

    2011

  27. [27]

    J., Primas, F., Hartman, H., et al

    Hansen, C. J., Primas, F., Hartman, H., et al. 2012, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 545, A31

    2012

  28. [28]

    2011, A&A, 529, A158

    Hayek, W., Asplund, M., Collet, R., & Nordlund, Å. 2011, A&A, 529, A158

    2011

  29. [29]

    Honda, S., Aoki, W., Ishimaru, Y ., Wanajo, S., & Ryan, S. G. 2006, ApJ, 643, 1180

    2006

  30. [30]

    2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 991, 112 Jönsson, P., Sahoo, B

    Huang, P., Zhou, Z., Cui, W., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 991, 112 Jönsson, P., Sahoo, B. K., Caliskan, S., & Amarsi, A. M. 2026, A&A, 709, A31

    2025

  31. [31]

    Jurewicz, A. J. G., Amarsi, A. M., Burnett, D. S., & Grevesse, N. 2024, MAPS, 59, 3193

    2024

  32. [32]

    1991, Journal of Physics B Atomic Molecular Physics, 24, L127

    Kaulakys, B. 1991, Journal of Physics B Atomic Molecular Physics, 24, L127

    1991

  33. [33]

    K., et al

    Korpi-Lagg, A., Gandorfer, A., Solanki, S. K., et al. 2025, Sol. Phys., 300, 75

    2025

  34. [34]

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

    Kramida, A., Yu. Ralchenko, Reader, J., & and NIST ASD Team. 2022, NIST Atomic Spectra Database (ver. 5.10). [Online]. Available: https://physics.nist.gov/asd[2023, September 11]. National Insti- tute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD

    2022

  35. [35]

    2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 662, 39

    Kratz, K.-L., Farouqi, K., Pfeiffer, B., et al. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 662, 39

    2007

  36. [36]

    Kurucz, R. L. 2017, Canadian Journal of Physics, 95, 825

    2017

  37. [37]

    M., Rodríguez Díaz, L

    Lagae, C., Amarsi, A. M., Rodríguez Díaz, L. F., et al. 2023, A&A, 672, A90

    2023

  38. [38]

    & Carlsson, M

    Leenaarts, J. & Carlsson, M. 2009, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 415, The Second Hinode Science Meeting: Be- yond Discovery-Toward Understanding, ed. B. Lites, M. Cheung, T. Magara, J. Mariska, & K. Reeves, 87

    2009

  39. [39]

    & Amarsi, A

    Lind, K. & Amarsi, A. M. 2024, ARA&A, 62, 475

    2024

  40. [40]

    M., Asplund, M., et al

    Lind, K., Amarsi, A. M., Asplund, M., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 4311

    2017

  41. [41]

    P., Gao, C., Zeng, J

    Liu, Y . P., Gao, C., Zeng, J. L., Yuan, J. M., & Shi, J. R. 2014, ApJS, 211, 30

    2014

  42. [42]

    2003, ApJ, 591, 1220

    Lodders, K. 2003, ApJ, 591, 1220

    2003

  43. [43]

    2021, Space Sci

    Lodders, K. 2021, Space Sci. Rev., 217, 44

    2021

  44. [44]

    2025, Space Sci

    Lodders, K., Bergemann, M., & Palme, H. 2025, Space Sci. Rev., 221, 23

    2025

  45. [45]

    2013, A&A, 557, A26

    Magic, Z., Collet, R., Asplund, M., et al. 2013, A&A, 557, A26

    2013

  46. [46]

    Massey, H. S. W. 1949, Reports on Progress in Physics, 12, 248

    1949

  47. [47]

    C., Cowan, J., et al

    Montes, F., Beers, T. C., Cowan, J., et al. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 671, 1685

    2007

  48. [48]

    E., Minnaert, M

    Moore, C. E., Minnaert, M. G. J., & Houtgast, J. 1966, The solar spectrum 2935 A to 8770 A

    1966

  49. [49]

    C., Ludwig, H.-G., & Trampedach, R

    Nordlund, A., Spruit, H. C., Ludwig, H.-G., & Trampedach, R. 1997, A&A, 328, 229

    1997

  50. [50]

    & Kratz, K.-L

    Ott, U. & Kratz, K.-L. 2008, New Astronomy Reviews, 52, 396

    2008

  51. [51]

    & Valenti, J

    Piskunov, N. & Valenti, J. A. 2017, A&A, 597, A16

    2017

  52. [52]

    E., Kupka, F., Ryabchikova, T

    Piskunov, N. E., Kupka, F., Ryabchikova, T. A., Weiss, W. W., & Jeffery, C. S. 1995, A&AS, 112, 525

    1995

  53. [53]

    2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 491, 1832 Prša, A., Harmanec, P., Torres, G., et al

    Prantzos, N., Abia, C., Cristallo, S., Limongi, M., & Chieffi, A. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 491, 1832 Prša, A., Harmanec, P., Torres, G., et al. 2016, AJ, 152, 41

    2020

  54. [54]

    U., Cowan, J

    Roederer, I. U., Cowan, J. J., Karakas, A. I., et al. 2010, ApJ, 724, 975

    2010

  55. [55]

    Ross, J. E. & Aller, L. H. 1972, Sol. Phys., 25, 30

    1972

  56. [56]

    Rutten, R. J. 2003, Radiative Transfer in Stellar Atmospheres, 8th edn. (Utrecht University)

    2003

  57. [57]

    K., Jönsson, P., & Gaigalas, G

    Sahoo, B. K., Jönsson, P., & Gaigalas, G. 2025, Phys. Rev. A, 112, 012809

    2025

  58. [58]

    Seaton, M. J. 1962, Proceedings of the Physical Society, 79, 1105

    1962

  59. [59]

    2025, Computer Physics Communications, 312, 109604

    Si, R., Li, Y ., Wang, K., et al. 2025, Computer Physics Communications, 312, 109604

    2025

  60. [60]

    J., & Gallino, R

    Sneden, C., Cowan, J. J., & Gallino, R. 2008, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 46, 241

    2008

  61. [61]

    F., Nordlund, Å., Collet, R., & Trampedach, R

    Stein, R. F., Nordlund, Å., Collet, R., & Trampedach, R. 2024, ApJ, 970, 24 van Regemorter, H. 1962, The Astrophysical Journal, 136, 906

    2024

  62. [62]

    & Ishimaru, Y

    Wanajo, S. & Ishimaru, Y . 2006, Nuclear Physics A, 777, 676

    2006

  63. [63]

    2023, A&A, 671, A171

    Wehrhahn, A., Piskunov, N., & Ryabchikova, T. 2023, A&A, 671, A171

    2023

  64. [64]

    J., Smythe, D

    Wood, B. J., Smythe, D. J., & Harrison, T. 2019, American Mineralogist, 104, 844

    2019

  65. [65]

    2015, Astronomy and Astro- physics, 579, A8

    Wu, X., Wang, L., Shi, J., Zhao, G., & Grupp, F. 2015, Astronomy and Astro- physics, 579, A8

    2015

  66. [66]

    M., Aguirre Børsen-Koch, V ., et al

    Zhou, Y ., Amarsi, A. M., Aguirre Børsen-Koch, V ., et al. 2023, A&A, 677, A98 Article number, page 11 of 11

    2023