Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 51 references

Large-scale magnetic stresses can decelerate the gas in protoplanetary disks by 1–2% at the periphery, and in wide rings this inward drift overpowers the pressure bump that would otherwise trap dust.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 07:42 UTC pith:HBE5LLFF

load-bearing objection Plausible new mechanism that can open dust traps in magnetic disks, but the paper needs a referee: a sign error in Eq. (3) and an unstated boundary field value set the quantitative result. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.21350 v1 pith:HBE5LLFF submitted 2026-07-23 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR

Magnetohydrodynamical opening of dust traps in protoplanetary disks

Sergey Khaibrakhmanov , Vitaly Akimkin This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR
keywords AccretionInterstellar plasmaMagnetohydrodynamical simulationsMagnetohydrodynamicsPlanet formationProtoplanetary disksdust trapssub-Keplerian rotation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper argues that the large-scale magnetic field threaded through a protoplanetary disk is not a passive background: its poloidal stresses slow the gas rotation by 1–2% at the disk periphery, an effect that always pushes dust inward, toward the star. This MHD slowdown does not care about the local pressure gradient, so inside a ring-like pressure maximum it can cancel the outward drift that normally makes the ring a dust trap. Using a one-dimensional-plus-vertical MHD disk model with a superimposed Gaussian density ring, the authors find that the trap 'opens' for wide rings with moderate density contrast in disks with turbulence parameter α≥10^-3 when dust grains have grown beyond about a micrometer. If correct, many observed rings are not closed traps but 'traffic jams' where dust lingers only briefly, raising the required conditions for the streaming instability and planetesimal formation.

Core claim

The central result is that the magnetic-tension contribution to the centrifugal balance, β_MHD_K = (B_r B_z / 2πΣ) / g_r, is always positive (for the classical field geometry with poloidal field lines bent away from the star), so it always decelerates the gas. In a density ring, the hydrodynamic pressure-gradient term β_HD_K changes sign across the ring, reversing drift and trapping dust; the MHD term does not change sign. When the MHD term dominates, the total deviation β_K = β_HD_K + β_MHD_K never changes sign across the ring, so dust drifts inward even inside the pressure maximum. In the authors' simulations this requires rings with half-width up to about 10 au at 100 au and density contr

What carries the argument

The central object is the dimensionless MHD deviation β_MHD_K = (B_r B_z/(2πΣ))/g_r, added to the pressure-gradient deviation β_HD_K inside the rotation law v_φ = v_K sqrt(1 - β_K). It quantifies the deceleration of gas due to large-scale poloidal magnetic tension. The model computes B_r and B_z by solving the stationary induction equation with Ohmic dissipation, ambipolar diffusion, and magnetic buoyancy, so the field strength and sign are self-consistently tied to the ionization fraction (which rises with dust grain size). The sign of B_rB_z (positive when field lines bend away from the star) is what makes the MHD drift one-way inward.

Load-bearing premise

The whole effect rests on the large-scale poloidal field having B_r B_z > 0 (field lines bent away from the star) with a strength and direction set by a stationary advection–diffusion model whose outer boundary field is inherited from the protostellar cloud; if the local field direction or magnitude is different—say, due to 3D zonal flows or flux transport—the one-way inward drift and the trap-opening conclusion could reverse.

What would settle it

Directly observe the rotation curve across a wide ring (half-width ~10 au at 100 au) in a disk with α≈10^-3 and grown grains: if the deviation from Keplerian rotation changes sign across the ring (as in the purely hydrodynamic case), or if dust remains permanently concentrated inside the ring, the MHD opening effect is falsified for that system.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • In disks with α≥10^-3 and grown grains (a_d≥1 µm), the MHD deceleration doubles the inward drift speed of 0.01–0.1 Stokes number particles and can cancel the outward drift at the inner edge of a wide ring, opening the dust trap.
  • Closed dust traps still exist in narrow rings (half-width ≲2.5 au) and in low-turbulence disks (α=10^-4), where the magnetic field is too weak to dominate the pressure gradient; these regions remain favorable for dust accumulation.
  • The observed ~1% sub-Keplerian rotation in the outer regions of several disks may be primarily magnetic in origin rather than a pressure-gradient signature.
  • Planetesimal formation via the streaming instability needs either higher dust-to-gas ratios in rings or lower ambient magnetic field strengths than previously thought, since the MHD effect depletes dust from wide rings.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A corollary the authors leave implicit: ring width itself becomes a diagnostic. Wide rings with low contrast should be dust-poor if this effect operates, while narrow, high-contrast rings should retain their dust; multi-wavelength observations of dust distribution across the ring-width observation window could test this directly.
  • If the sign of B_rB_z varies with radius or over time (e.g., due to flux transport or local reversals), the effect would flip between opening and deepening traps, producing time-variable ring morphologies not captured by the stationary model.
  • The mechanism depends on the ionization-recombination state, so it should be weaker in regions shielded from cosmic rays; a testable extension is to compare ring trap openness inside versus outside the dead zone in the same disk.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper revisits the standard interpretation of annular dust rings as dust traps inside local pressure maxima. Using the authors' earlier 1+1D stationary MHD disk model, it computes the poloidal magnetic field components, forms the dimensionless deviations β_HD and β_MHD from Keplerian rotation, and evaluates the dust drift speed for a Gaussian surface-density ring placed at 100 au. For grown dust grains (a_d ≳ 1 μm), the magnetic stress term becomes dynamically important in the outer disk and, unlike the pressure-gradient term, always decelerates the gas. Consequently, the total rotation deviation can remain positive across the ring, preventing the sign reversal of the radial drift that would otherwise concentrate dust at the pressure maximum. A parameter study in Appendix G maps the conditions for this 'MHD opening' of dust traps in terms of ring width, density contrast, turbulence parameter α, and grain size.

Significance. If the central comparison is correct, the paper provides a genuinely useful caveat: in a disk with a dynamically important large-scale poloidal field, a local pressure maximum is not automatically a closed dust trap. The clean decomposition into β_HD and β_MHD, the explicit treatment of the magnetic field's dependence on grain size and ionization, and the extensive parameter grid in Table 2 are strengths. The authors also state several important limitations, including the neglect of zonal flows and MHD winds. However, the quantitative claim depends on the adopted magnetic-field geometry and boundary normalization, and the printed equations contain a sign inconsistency that must be fixed before the results can be accepted at face value.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2, Eqs. (1)–(3)] The sign convention in the definition of β_HD is inconsistent with the rest of the paper. As printed, Eq. (1) reads v_φ = sqrt(GM/r − (r/ρ)∂P/∂r − ...), while the radial momentum balance requires v_φ² = GM/r + (r/ρ)∂P/∂r when ∂P/∂r is the signed radial derivative. Eq. (3) defines β_HD = (1/ρ ∂P/∂r)/g_r, which would be negative in the normal outer disk where ∂P/∂r<0. Yet §3.3 states that β_HD is positive in the inner disk and reaches +0.03 at the right edge of the ring, and negative at the inner edge of the ring. The quoted values correspond instead to β_HD = −(1/ρ ∂P/∂r)/g_r. Since the trap-opening condition is β_MHD > |β_HD| at the inner edge, this sign is load-bearing for the main result. Please correct Eq. (1) and Eq. (3) (and any related text) so that the printed formulas match the sign convention actually used in the analysis.
  2. [Appendix A, Eq. (A9) and §3.2] The magnitude of the effect is set by the outer-boundary normalization B_z0/Σ_0 in Eq. (A9), but the adopted numerical values are never given. The text says only that the field at the outer boundary 'coincides with the magnetic field of the surrounding protostellar cloud.' The quantitative thresholds in Table 2 and the abstract (α=10⁻³, ΔR=10 au, contrast ≤60%) scale directly with this assumed fossil-field value, which has an order-of-magnitude uncertainty. Please state the adopted B_z0 and Σ_0 explicitly and provide a sensitivity test (e.g., vary B_z0/Σ_0 by factors of 0.1–10) to show how robust the trap-opening boundaries are.
  3. [§3.3 and Discussion] The assertion that the MHD deviation 'leads to drift towards the star only' is a model prediction rather than a general property. In the 1+1D model, Eq. (A7) with v_r<0 guarantees B_rB_z>0, so the magnetic stress always decelerates the gas. In a 3D disk with zonal flows, flux transport, or local outward gas motions, B_rB_z can be locally negative, which would make the MHD term accelerate the gas and deepen rather than open the trap. The Discussion acknowledges 3D complexity, but the abstract and the Conclusions state the inward-only property without this necessary caveat. Please state the condition B_rB_z>0 explicitly in the abstract and conclusions, and consider whether the thresholds in Table 2 should be labeled as conditional on this geometry.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.3] The sentence 'The case with the Stokes number determined by the dust fragmentation is considered in is considered in Appendix D' contains a duplicated phrase; please revise.
  2. [Appendix F and Fig. 8 caption] The text says the 'sharpest' ring has ΔR_ring = 0.025 R_ring = 2.5 au, but the Figure 8 caption gives ΔR_ring = 5 au. Please make these consistent, since the parameter study in Table 2 uses 2.5 au.
  3. [§3.2] The definition of plasma beta is given twice in the same paragraph and again in the Figure 1 caption; keep a single definition to avoid confusion.
  4. [Fig. 2(c)/§3.3] The sentence 'the radial drift speed does not change sign across the ring... this value does not become negative' is ambiguous: the drift speed in the model is negative when directed inward, so 'does not become negative' is confusing. Please rephrase to make clear that the drift direction remains inward.
  5. [General] Minor typos: 'the profiles of plasmaβ' missing space, 'inversed profile' should be 'inverse profile', and 'pnales' in Figure 7 caption should be 'panels'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the trap-opening result is a computed consequence of the model, and the inward-only MHD drift is an explicitly stated model assumption, not a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that magnetic stresses can prevent the sign reversal of the sub-Keplerian deviation across a density ring and thus 'open' the dust trap—is a derived comparison between β_MHD and |β_HD|, not an identity with its inputs. The only place where circularity might be suspected is the abstract's statement that the MHD deviation 'leads to drift towards the star only.' That property follows from Eq. (A7), −z v_r B_z = B_r η, combined with the assumed inward accretion velocity v_r<0, which forces B_rB_z>0 and hence β_MHD>0 in Eq. (4). This is not a fitted prediction: the paper explicitly labels it as the 'classical picture of the magnetic field distribution with poloidal magnetic field lines bent away from the star' in Section 4, i.e. it is a stated input assumption. The quantitative trap-opening conclusion is not equivalent to that sign: it requires computing the magnitude of β_MHD relative to |β_HD| across the ring, which the paper does in Section 3.3, Figure 2, and the parameter study of Appendix G. The magnetic-field model is imported from the authors' prior works (Khaibrakhmanov & Dudorov 2022; Dudorov & Khaibrakhmanov 2014), but it is used as an input condition for the present calculation, not as evidence for the conclusion, and no parameter is fitted to the ring-opening outcome. The 'does not depend on the local gas pressure gradient' property is definitionally true via Eq. (4), but this is a transparent algebraic separation rather than a claimed empirical result. The acknowledged limitations about 3D zonal flows and flux transport are robustness caveats, not circularities. Therefore no circular step is present.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a 1+1D stationary MHD disk model whose magnetic field configuration and strength are inherited from prior work. No new physical entities are introduced; the quantitative thresholds are sensitive to the boundary field normalization, turbulence parameter, and dust grain size, which are adopted rather than measured.

free parameters (4)
  • Outer boundary vertical field normalization B_z0/Σ_0 = not specified (set to match protostellar cloud)
    Controls B_z in the frozen-in regime via Eq. (A9); the dynamically strong periphery required for the result depends on this boundary value.
  • Stellar surface field B_* = 2 kG
    Adopted model input; sets the inner-disk field normalization and contributes to the large-scale field profile.
  • Turbulence parameter α = 0.01 (also 1e-3, 1e-4)
    Scans over α set the magnetic advection speed; the trap-opening thresholds (60%, 200%) are reported as functions of α.
  • Non-drifting dust grain radius a_d = 0.1 μm–1 mm; threshold >1 μm
    Controls ionization fraction, magnetic diffusivity and field strength; the effect switches on for a_d≳1 μm.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Shakura–Sunyaev α-viscosity parameterization for angular momentum transport (Eq. A3)
    The whole disk structure and magnetic advection speed depend on this prescription.
  • domain assumption Stationary, geometrically thin, optically thick disk in centrifugal and vertical magnetostatic equilibrium; radial derivatives neglected (Appendix A)
    Basis of the 1+1D model; excludes 3D flows and time dependence.
  • domain assumption Poloidal field lines bent away from the star so B_r and B_z have the same sign and B_rB_z>0 everywhere (Eqs. A7–A9; Sec. 4)
    Ensures the MHD term always decelerates gas; if geometry differs locally, the direction of the MHD drift can reverse.
  • domain assumption Dust drift described by Epstein-drag terminal velocity with St≪1: v_drift≈−β_K St v_K (Eq. 6)
    Neglects gas advection and turbulent diffusion; the trap-opening conclusion relies on this formula's sign-change behavior.
  • domain assumption Ionization–recombination balance with cosmic rays, X-rays, radionuclides, dust recombination, and thermal ionization (Eqs. A13–A14)
    Sets the diffusivities that control B_r and B_z; sensitive to dust grain size and composition.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 17606 in / 19557 out tokens · 197041 ms · 2026-08-01T07:42:00.066460+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Observed ring-like structures in protoplanetary disks are often interpreted as local pressure maxima, which induce efficient dust concentration. We revisit this paradigm, considering the effect of the large-scale magnetic field stresses on the gas rotation speed. Our simulations show that the magnetic field can be dynamically strong and cause $1-2$% deviation from the Keplerian rotation at the periphery of a typical turbulent disk with dust grains of size $> 1\,\mu$m. This effect increases the inward drift speed of large grains characterized by Stokes number of $0.01-0.1$ by up to two times in our simulations. Importantly, such MHD deviation from the Keplerian rotation does not depend on the local gas pressure gradient and leads to drift towards the star only. The fast drift induced by this effect can cancel out the outward drift caused by the positive pressure gradient at the inner edge of a ring and open up the dust trap. For the disks with turbulence parameter $\alpha=10^{-3}$, this effect appears in the rings with a half-width of $10$ au and a density contrast up to $60$% ($200$% for $\alpha=10^{-2}$). Thus, the presence of a large-scale magnetic field in protoplanetary disks either completely prevents or imposes stricter conditions for dust accumulation and the onset of the streaming instability in the density rings in protoplanetary disks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.21350 by Sergey Khaibrakhmanov, Vitaly Akimkin.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: a shows that, starting from the strength of 500 G at the inner disk edge, the value of Bz monotoni￾cally decreases and changes proportionally to gas surface density Σ in the region of thermal ionization, r < 0.2 au. The magnetic field is tightly coupled to plasma due to a large ionization fraction here. The value of Bz abruptly falls by a factor of 2−100 (depending on dust grain size) at r ≈ 0.2 − 0.3 au. … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Panel (a): the radial profile of the surface density of the disk with a ring-like density bump at Rring = 100 au. The ring has a half-width 10 au and a maximum density Σbump = 2 × Σdisk(Rring) ≈ 12 g cm−2 . The inset shows the zoomed-in inner region of the disk. Panel (b): corresponding radial profiles of the degree of the deviation of plasma rotation speed from the Keplerian one, βk, calculated for variou… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Radial structure of the disk. Panel (a): surface density profile; panel (b): the profiles of midplane temperature (solid line) and effective temperature (dashed line); panel (c): midplane ionization fraction calculated for various dust grain sizes. Thin lines with labels show the slopes of the power-law profiles in corresponding regions. B. STRUCTURE OF THE ACCRETION DISK In this section, we describe the g… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Radial profiles of the ionization fraction (a) and magnetic field strength (b) in the disk with a ring. Different lines correspond to various dust grain sizes. Vertical colored stripe delineates the ring position, the vertical dashed line shows the coordinate of the center of the ring. Standard disk and ring parameters are used. to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Panel (a): the radial profile of the Stokes determined for the drifting particles, which size is determined by the fragmentation barrier (Equation (D15), dashed gray line). Horizontal line delineates the value St = 0.01 used as standard value in Section 3.3. The highly turbulent disk (α = 10−2 ) with a ring of radius Rring = 100 au, half-width 10 au, and maximum density Σbump = 2×Σdisk(2) ≈ 12 g cm−2 is co… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The radial profiles of plasma β for various dust grain sizes (lines of different colors) in the disk with turbulence parameter α = 10−3 (panel a) and 10−4 (panel b). The ring with radius Rring = 100 au, half-width ∆Rring = 10 au, maximum density Σbump/Σdisk(Rring) = 0.8 is considered. The horizontal line delineates value β = 1. speed of the magnetic field, which in turn can change the magnetic field streng… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Dust traps properties in the disks with moderate turbulence (α = 10−3 , left panels) and weak turbulence (α = 10−4 , right pnales). The ring in the disk has a radius Rring = 100 au, half-width 10 au and a maximum density Σbump/Σdisk = 0.8. Panels (a) and (b): the radial profiles of the degree of the deviation of plasma rotation speed from the Keplerian one, βk, calculated for various sizes of non-drifting … view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png] view at source ↗

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

51 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    2023, ApJ, 946, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb81f

    Aoyama, Y., & Bai, X.-N. 2023, ApJ, 946, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb81f

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acb81f 2023

  2. [2]

    Armitage, P. J. 2010, Astrophysics of Planet Formation B´ ethune, W., & Latter, H. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 6103, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa908

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa908 2010

  3. [3]

    2012, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 539, A148, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118136 D’Alessio, P., Cant¨ o, J., Calvet, N., & Lizano, S

    Birnstiel, T., Klahr, H., & Ercolano, B. 2012, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 539, A148, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118136 D’Alessio, P., Cant¨ o, J., Calvet, N., & Lizano, S. 1998, ApJ, 500, 411, doi: 10.1086/305702 16

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201118136 2012

  4. [4]

    2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Drazkowska, J., Bitsch, B., Lambrechts, M., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka, Y. Aikawa, T. Muto, K. Tomida, & M. Tamura, 717, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2203.09759

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2203.09759 2023

  5. [5]

    E., & Khaibrakhmanov, S

    Dudorov, A. E., & Khaibrakhmanov, S. A. 2014, Ap&SS, 352, 103, doi: 10.1007/s10509-014-1900-4

    work page doi:10.1007/s10509-014-1900-4 2014

  6. [6]

    E., & Sazonov, Y

    Dudorov, A. E., & Sazonov, Y. V. 1987, Nauchnye Informatsii, 63, 68

    1987

  7. [7]

    M., Simon, J

    Flaherty, K., Hughes, A. M., Simon, J. B., et al. 2020, ApJ, 895, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8cc5

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab8cc5 2020

  8. [8]

    M., Simon, J

    Flaherty, K., Hughes, A. M., Simon, J. B., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 532, 363, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1480

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1480 2024

  9. [9]

    F., Stadler, J., et al

    Fukagawa, M., Izquierdo, A. F., Stadler, J., et al. 2026, ApJL, 1000, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae3dc2

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae3dc2 2026

  10. [10]

    Gammie, C. F. 1996, ApJ, 457, 355, doi: 10.1086/176735

    doi:10.1086/176735 1996

  11. [11]

    E., Najita, J., & Igea, J

    Glassgold, A. E., Najita, J., & Igea, J. 1997, ApJ, 480, 344, doi: 10.1086/303952

    doi:10.1086/303952 1997

  12. [12]

    J., et al

    Hardiman, C., Pinte, C., Price, D. J., et al. 2026, ApJL, 997, L47, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae313a

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae313a 2026

  13. [13]

    2025, MNRAS, 536, 1374, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2681

    Hu, X., Li, Z.-Y., Bae, J., & Zhu, Z. 2025, MNRAS, 536, 1374, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2681

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2681 2025

  14. [14]

    M., Dullemond, C

    Huang, J., Andrews, S. M., Dullemond, C. P., et al. 2018, ApJL, 869, L42, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf740

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aaf740 2018

  15. [15]

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

    doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  16. [16]

    V., Silsbee, K., Padovani, M., & Galli, D

    Ivlev, A. V., Silsbee, K., Padovani, M., & Galli, D. 2021, ApJ, 909, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abdc27

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abdc27 2021

  17. [17]

    Khaibrakhmanov, S. A. 2024, Astronomical and Astrophysical Transactions, 34, 139, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2401.14180

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2401.14180 2024

  18. [18]

    A., & Dudorov, A

    Khaibrakhmanov, S. A., & Dudorov, A. E. 2017, Physics of Particles and Nuclei Letters, 14, 882, doi: 10.1134/S1547477117060176

    work page doi:10.1134/s1547477117060176 2017

  19. [19]

    A., & Dudorov, A

    Khaibrakhmanov, S. A., & Dudorov, A. E. 2019, Magnetohydrodynamics, 65, doi: 10.22364/mhd.55.1-2.8

    work page doi:10.22364/mhd.55.1-2.8 2019

  20. [20]

    A., & Dudorov, A

    Khaibrakhmanov, S. A., & Dudorov, A. E. 2022, Astronomy Reports, 66, 872, doi: 10.1134/S1063772922100079

    work page doi:10.1134/s1063772922100079 2022

  21. [21]

    Sobolev, A. M. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 586, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2349

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2349 2017

  22. [22]

    D., & Lifshitz, E

    Landau, L. D., & Lifshitz, E. M. 1984, Electrodynamics of continuous media, second edition edn., Course of Theoretical Physics (Pergamon)

    1984

  23. [23]

    2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Lesur, G., Flock, M., Ercolano, B., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka, Y. Aikawa, T. Muto, K. Tomida, & M. Tamura, 465, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2203.09821

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2203.09821 2023

  24. [24]

    M., et al

    Li, D., Pantin, E., Telesco, C. M., et al. 2016, ApJ, 832, 18, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/832/1/18

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/832/1/18 2016

  25. [25]

    M., Zhang, H., et al

    Li, D., Telesco, C. M., Zhang, H., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 1427, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2228

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2228 2018

  26. [26]

    2025, A&A, 694, A190, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450165

    Lietzow-Sinjen, M., Wolf, S., & Brunngr¨ aber, R. 2025, A&A, 694, A190, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450165

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450165 2025

  27. [27]

    2016, ApJ, 817, 35, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/817/1/35

    Lizano, S., Tapia, C., Boehler, Y., & D’Alessio, P. 2016, ApJ, 817, 35, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/817/1/35

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/817/1/35 2016

  28. [28]

    Lovelace, R. V. E., Rothstein, D. M., & Bisnovatyi-Kogan, G. S. 2009, ApJ, 701, 885, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/701/2/885

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/701/2/885 2009

  29. [29]

    1991, ApJ, 383, 814, doi: 10.1086/170839

    Malbet, F., & Bertout, C. 1991, ApJ, 383, 814, doi: 10.1086/170839

    work page doi:10.1086/170839 1991

  30. [30]

    2019, ApJ, 872, 98, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0022 ¨Oberg, K

    Mori, S., Bai, X.-N., & Okuzumi, S. 2019, ApJ, 872, 98, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0022 ¨Oberg, K. I., Guzm´ an, V. V., Walsh, C., et al. 2021, ApJS, 257, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac1432

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab0022 2019

  31. [31]

    2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 526, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02454-x

    Ohashi, S., Muto, T., Tsukamoto, Y., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 526, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02454-x

    doi:10.1038/s41550-024-02454-x 2025

  32. [32]

    2019, MNRAS, 486, 3907, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1046

    Pavlyuchenkov, Y., Akimkin, V., Wiebe, D., & Vorobyov, E. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 3907, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1046

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1046 2019

  33. [33]

    2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Pinte, C., Teague, R., Flaherty, K., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka, Y. Aikawa, T. Muto, K. Tomida, & M. Tamura, 645, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2203.09528

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2203.09528 2023

  34. [34]

    J., & Iglesias, C

    Rogers, F. J., & Iglesias, C. A. 1992, ApJSS, 79, 507, doi: 10.1086/191659

    doi:10.1086/191659 1992

  35. [35]

    Rosotti, G. P. 2023, NewAR, 96, 101674, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2023.101674

    arXiv 2023

  36. [36]

    M., Umebayashi, T., & Nakano, T

    Sano, T., Miyama, S. M., Umebayashi, T., & Nakano, T. 2000, ApJ, 543, 486, doi: 10.1086/317075

    doi:10.1086/317075 2000

  37. [37]

    2003, A&A, 410, 611, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031279

    Sedlmayr, E. 2003, A&A, 410, 611, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031279

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20031279 2003

  38. [38]

    I., & Sunyaev, R

    Shakura, N. I., & Sunyaev, R. A. 1973, A&A, 24, 337

    1973

  39. [39]

    Diamond, P. H. 2007, ApJ, 665, 535, doi: 10.1086/519678

    work page doi:10.1086/519678 2007

  40. [40]

    1978, Physical processes in the interstellar medium, doi: 10.1002/9783527617722

    Spitzer, L. 1978, Physical processes in the interstellar medium, doi: 10.1002/9783527617722

    doi:10.1002/9783527617722 1978

  41. [41]

    P., Cridland, A

    Tabone, B., Rosotti, G. P., Cridland, A. J., Armitage, P. J., & Lodato, G. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 2290, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3442

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3442 2022

  42. [42]

    M., et al

    Teague, R., Lankhaar, B., Andrews, S. M., et al. 2025, ApJL, 991, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adff4d

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adff4d 2025

  43. [43]

    2021, ApJS, 257, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac1438

    Teague, R., Bae, J., Aikawa, Y., et al. 2021, ApJS, 257, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac1438

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac1438 2021

  44. [44]

    M., et al

    Teague, R., Bae, J., Andrews, S. M., et al. 2022, ApJ, 936, 163, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac88ca 17

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac88ca 2022

  45. [45]

    T., Diep, P

    Thang, N. T., Diep, P. N., Hoang, T., et al. 2024, ApJ, 970, 114, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4f74

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad4f74 2024

  46. [46]

    2009, ApJ, 690, 69, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/690/1/69

    Umebayashi, T., & Nakano, T. 2009, ApJ, 690, 69, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/690/1/69

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/690/1/69 2009

  47. [47]

    2023, A&A, 677, A70, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245305

    Wafflard-Fernandez, G., & Lesur, G. 2023, A&A, 677, A70, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245305

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245305 2023

  48. [48]

    2025, A&A, 696, A8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453541

    Wafflard-Fernandez, G., & Lesur, G. 2025, A&A, 696, A8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453541

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202453541 2025

  49. [49]

    Weidenschilling, S. J. 1977, MNRAS, 180, 57, doi: 10.1093/mnras/180.2.57

    doi:10.1093/mnras/180.2.57 1977

  50. [50]

    2024, ApJ, 970, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5553

    Wu, Y. 2024, ApJ, 970, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5553

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5553 2024

  51. [51]

    2023, MNRAS, 523, 2630, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1553

    Wu, Y., Chen, Y.-X., Jiang, H., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 2630, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1553

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1553 2023