Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 35 references

The Photolysis of Aromatic Hydrocarbons Adsorbed on the Surfaces of Cosmic Dust Grains

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that aromatic hydrocarbons adsorbed on cosmic dust grains are so photostable under the interstellar radiation field that their photolysis contributes a negligible fraction to the abundance of small hydrocarbons.

desk verdict A transparent, order-of-magnitude lab-to-ISM transfer with a plausible negative result for ideal surfaces; the abstract overreaches and the missing sigma_3 plus assumed tau_1 need fixing. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04356 v1 pith:T7J3XVPK submitted 2019-08-12 astro-ph.GA physics.chem-ph

M.S. Murga , V.N. Varakin , A. V. Stolyarov , D. S. Wiebe This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAphysics.chem-ph
keywords photolysisadsorbedmoleculesbenzenearomatichydrocarbonsinterstellardustgrainsphotodissociationregionsradiationfieldsmall
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

Laboratory experiments with pulsed laser light show that benzene molecules adsorbed on a cold quartz surface dissociate through a three-photon mechanism, with products that differ from gas-phase photolysis. This paper adapts that mechanism to the continuous, much weaker ultraviolet radiation field of the interstellar medium and estimates the yield of desorbed fragments in photodissociation regions. The central result is that, even at the strongest radiation intensities, the fraction of adsorbed molecules that desorb as fragments stays below about 1%, so grain-surface photolysis of small aromatics is not a significant source of acetylene or atomic hydrogen. If this is right, astrochemical models can safely neglect this channel when computing small-hydrocarbon abundances, and they should stop applying gas-phase photolysis rates to molecules on grain surfaces.

What carries the argument

The central object is the kinetic equation for sequential photon absorption in an adsorbed molecule, Eq. (4), adapted from the pulsed-laser three-photon mechanism to a single-VUV-photon route. In the laser experiment a molecule absorbs two UV photons to reach the vibronic quasicontinuum—the dense manifold of highly excited vibrational states—and a third photon stimulates emission to a dissociative electronic state. The paper replaces the first two photons by one VUV photon, so the desorbed fraction per second is $k = \tau_1 \sigma_3 \int_{10\,\mathrm{eV}}^{13.6\,\mathrm{eV}} \sigma_{\mathrm{VUV}}(E_1)\, (df_{\mathrm{ISRF}}/dE_1)\, f_{\mathrm{ISRF}}(E_1-\Delta E)\, dE_1$ with $\Delta E = 5$ eV. The key parameter is $\tau_1$, the lifetime of the intermediate state in the quasicontinuum, which is set equal to the 20 ns laser pulse duration because no measured value is available; all yields scale linearly with it.

What would settle it

Expose a monolayer of benzene on an interstellar grain analog (fused quartz or amorphous silicate) to continuous vacuum-ultraviolet radiation between 10 and 13.6 eV at a flux corresponding to $U = 2\times10^4$ times the mean interstellar radiation field, and measure the desorbed H and C2H2 fractions; if the fraction exceeds roughly 1%, the central claim fails. Alternatively, a time-resolved measurement of the intermediate-state lifetime $\tau_1$ would settle the scaling, since the predicted yield is proportional to it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim, stated on its own terms, is that photolysis of aromatic molecules adsorbed on cosmic dust grains is very inefficient under interstellar conditions because the adsorbed molecule cannot be promoted directly to a repulsive electronic state; instead it must climb through the vibronic quasicontinuum and be transferred to a dissociative state by a second photon. The authors derive an estimate in which the fraction of desorbed fragments scales as $U^2 \tau_1 \Delta t_{\mathrm{ISRF}}$, where $U$ is the radiation intensity in units of the mean interstellar field. Even at $U = 2\times10^5$, an order of magnitude above the Orion Bar ionization front, the desorbed fraction remains no more than about 1%. They further find that, while a single large grain can release more acetylene than a single gas-phase PAH can, the much larger number of small PAHs means the grain-surface channel contributes a negligible fraction of the small hydrocarbons in PDRs.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the pulsed-laser dissociation mechanism measured for a monolayer of benzene on quartz—two photons to reach a dense set of excited vibrational states, then a third photon to cross into a dissociative state—still applies under the continuous, much weaker ultraviolet light of interstellar space, with the lifetime of the intermediate state set equal to the 20 ns laser pulse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Astrochemical models of photodissociation regions can neglect grain-surface photolysis of small aromatic molecules as a source of acetylene and atomic hydrogen without changing small-hydrocarbon abundances by more than a percent.
  • Gas-phase photolysis rates and product channels should not be applied to molecules adsorbed on dust grains, because adsorbed benzene dissociates through a different mechanism and produces no molecular hydrogen.
  • The surfaces of large grains undergo slow photoerosion under intense ultraviolet radiation, but the effect is small compared with hydrogen emission from hydrogenated amorphous carbon surfaces.
  • Multi-layer molecular mantles are unstable against ultraviolet radiation, so photodesorption of whole molecules or clusters, followed by gas-phase photolysis, is likely more important than in-situ dissociation within the mantle.
  • For larger interstellar PAHs, which are more photostable than benzene, the adsorbed-state photolysis channel is even less significant.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the intermediate-state lifetime $\tau_1$ is measured to be orders of magnitude longer than the 20 ns pulse duration used here, the predicted desorbed fractions would rise proportionally and could become non-negligible in the strongest PDRs; this is an extrapolation beyond the paper's assumptions.
  • The quadratic scaling of yield with radiation intensity implies that in extreme radiation environments beyond the Orion Bar, grain-surface photolysis of large grains could rival hydrogen emission from HAC surfaces, a regime the paper identifies but does not quantify.
  • Surface defects and local field enhancement on real interstellar grains may amplify photolysis rates by several orders of magnitude relative to the ideal quartz substrate, as the paper notes in conclusion; laboratory studies on rough or icy substrates would bracket this effect.
  • Because the paper assumes the entire mantle is benzene, a more realistic mixed-ice mantle (water, methanol, CO) may change the dissociation channels and yields; the paper states its conclusions are unchanged but does not model mixed mantles.
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

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript adapts a laboratory study of the laser-induced photodissociation of a single monolayer of benzene adsorbed on quartz at about 100 K to the interstellar radiation field, with emphasis on photodissociation regions. A three-level kinetic model (Eqs. 1-7) is used to convert the measured laser-pulse fragment yields into an estimated fraction of adsorbed benzene molecules that desorb as H atoms or C2H2 under the MMP83 interstellar radiation field, including the possibility that a single VUV photon replaces the first two laser photons. This estimate is then compared with gas-phase PAH destruction as a source of acetylene (Eqs. 8-9, Figs. 2-3). The authors conclude that adsorbed-aromatic photolysis contributes a negligible fraction of small hydrocarbons in the ISM, with the desorbed-fragment fraction remaining below about 1% even at U = 2 x 10^5.

Significance. If the central claim were established, the paper would have a useful consequence for PDR astrochemistry: grain-surface photolysis of small aromatic mantles could be neglected as a source of C2H2 and H, while the difference in dissociation channels relative to gas-phase PAHs would justify caution in applying gas-phase photochemistry to mantles. The authors deserve credit for taking a specific laboratory mechanism seriously, for working with an integrated interstellar radiation field rather than a monochromatic approximation, and for making an order-of-magnitude comparison with gas-phase PAH destruction. The paper is also explicit that tau1 is unknown and that surface defects can amplify the field. However, as detailed below, the broad version of the 'negligible' conclusion is not yet supported because several load-bearing quantities are unreported or uncontrolled.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section IV, final paragraph and Fig. 1] The statement that 'even at the highest radiation intensities, the fraction of desorbed fragments in the ISM remains low, no more than 1%' applies only to the ideal, defect-free surface. The final paragraph of Section IV states that substrate defects can amplify the local electromagnetic field and increase the photodissociation rate by several orders of magnitude, and that interstellar grain surfaces are likely to be more defective than laboratory quartz. Since the ideal-surface yield in Fig. 1 is already about 10^-2 at U = 2 x 10^5, an unquantified enhancement of two to three orders of magnitude would make the channel significant or saturated for real interstellar grains. The abstract-level conclusion should be restricted to ideal surfaces or supported by a quantitative bound on the defect enhancement.
  2. [Section IV, Eqs. (4), (6), (7)] The lifetime of the intermediate quasicontinuum level, tau1, is not measured and is set equal to the 20 ns laser pulse duration Delta_t_l, while the exposure time Delta_t_ISRF is not given a numerical value. Equation (7) is linear in both tau1 and Delta_t_ISRF, so the normalization of Figs. 1-3 and the quoted absolute yields (for example, 7 x 10^5 acetylene molecules per micron-sized grain) depend on two uncontrolled time scales. A shorter tau1 would suppress the yield, while a longer tau1 or a PDR-scale exposure time would raise it. Please report a physical range for tau1 and state the benchmark Delta_t_ISRF used in the figures, distinguishing instantaneous rates from integrated fractions.
  3. [Section IV, Eqs. (3) and (6)] The stimulated-emission cross section sigma_3, which appears linearly in the central estimate and is said to be estimated from the mass-spectrometer signals, is never reported. Without its numerical value, the normalization of Fig. 1 and of the abundance comparison in Eqs. (8)-(9) cannot be independently checked. The authors should quote sigma_3 and propagate the experimental calibration uncertainties through Eq. (7), or explicitly show that the order-of-magnitude conclusion is insensitive to sigma_3.
  4. [Section IV, Eq. (6)] The VUV absorption cross sections sigma_VUV are taken from gas-phase measurements (reference [31]), whereas the paper argues throughout that the electronic structure, relaxation, and dissociation behavior of adsorbed molecules differ substantially from the gas phase. Using gas-phase cross sections for the first absorption step of an adsorbed benzene molecule is an uncontrolled approximation that directly enters the yield. The authors should justify this transfer with condensed-phase or adsorbed-phase cross-section data, or bracket the result with both gas-phase and surface-appropriate values.
  5. [Section IV, Eq. (6)] The replacement of the two-photon laser excitation by a single VUV photon, together with the delta-function approximation G(E1, E3, Edis) = delta(E1 - E3 - Delta_E), is a scenario rather than a validated model. The laboratory mechanism requires two 5 eV photons to reach the quasicontinuum and a third 5 eV photon for stimulated emission, and the mapping Delta_E = 5 eV is anchored to that single experiment. No evidence is given that the same dissociative-state crossing exists for one-photon VUV excitation of adsorbed benzene, nor that sigma_3 is energy-independent as assumed. The sensitivity of Eqs. (5)-(7) to these assumptions should be explored; without it, the predicted yields remain conditional on the chosen mechanism.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Conclusion] The paper generalizes from benzene to 'aromatic hydrocarbons' in the abstract and conclusion, but the laboratory data and model concern only benzene; the authors themselves note that larger PAHs are more stable. The generalization should be explicitly qualified.
  2. [Section IV, Eq. (6) and Eq. (7)] The notation in Eq. (6) is hard to follow because f_ISRF(E1 - Delta_E) is written as a flux while df_ISRF/dE1 is written as a spectral flux; please define both symbols and check the units of k in Eq. (7).
  3. [Section IV, Eq. (8)] The assumption that every grain with radius larger than 10 angstroms is coated with a pure benzene mantle of thickness half the grain radius is an extreme upper bound on the mantle contribution. If intended as such, it should be stated explicitly, since it makes the later 'negligible' conclusion conservative with respect to mantle mass but not with respect to the defect-enhancement effect.
  4. [Section IV, Fig. 3] Figure 3 compares hydrogen desorption from HAC and from a benzene mantle, but no expression for the HAC desorption rate from reference [14] is given; please provide the formula or a precise reference to the equation used so that the comparison is reproducible.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the ISM photolysis yield is an extrapolation from measured laboratory fragment yields, dominated by the laser/ISRF flux ratio rather than by any fitted parameter.

full rationale

The derivation is not circular. The central ISM yield is obtained by adapting measured laboratory fragment fractions (Eq. 3) to single-VUV-photon excitation (Eqs. 4-6) and scaling with radiation intensity U (Eq. 7). The low ISM values in Fig. 1 follow from the 15-19 order-of-magnitude ratio between the laser and interstellar photon fluxes; the calibrated sigma_3 enters as a measured cross-section, and the conclusion is not a re-statement of that fit. The unknown quasicontinuum lifetime tau_1 is explicitly set to Delta t_l and the paper states that results can be scaled if this parameter changes, so this is an acknowledged parameter choice rather than a concealed fit. The comparison with gas-phase PAH destruction uses the authors' prior model [14], but the absolute low-yield conclusion (at most 1% at U = 2e5) is derived independently of that model, and [14] is an external, falsifiable earlier model rather than a theorem invoked to force the result. The defect-amplification caveat concerns applicability to real grain surfaces, not circularity of the derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

All quantitative conclusions rest on a handful of measured inputs (absorption cross sections, fragment yields) and on explicit modeling choices (tau_1, Delta_E = 5 eV, energy-independent sigma_3, MMP83 field, benzene-only mantles). No genuinely new entity is postulated. The main free parameter is tau_1, which the paper says is unknown; sigma_3 is calibrated from the same lab data and not quoted. The most consequential domain assumption is that the laser three-photon mechanism translates to one VUV photon plus stimulated emission under ISRF.

free parameters (3)
  • sigma_3 (stimulated emission cross section) = not quoted
    Calibrated from S_H and S_C2H2 signals in [20]; enters Eqs. 3-6 and all VUV yields, but no value or uncertainty is reported in this paper.
  • tau_1 (quasicontinuum level lifetime) = 20 ns (set equal to Delta_t_l)
    Explicitly unknown; Eq. 7 is linear in tau_1; setting it to the laser pulse duration is an order-of-magnitude assumption introduced just before Eq. 7.
  • Delta_E = E1 - E3 = 5 eV
    Taken from the laboratory pair (10 eV photon in, 5 eV stimulated photon out) and assumed to hold for all E1; used to turn the unknown G into a delta function in Eq. 6.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The ground-state potential energy surface of a physically adsorbed benzene molecule essentially coincides with that of the isolated gas-phase molecule
    Section III; this is why gas-phase absorption cross sections from [30,31] are used for adsorbed molecules despite the paper noting excited states can change.
  • domain assumption The dissociation proceeds by excitation into the vibronic quasicontinuum followed by stimulated emission to a dissociative state; in the ISM one VUV photon can replace the first two laser photons
    Section II and Eq. 4; the entire ISRF scaling inherits this mechanism from the pulsed-laser experiment, but the ISM has a different intensity and time structure.
  • domain assumption The ISRF is the MMP83 mean interstellar field and scales linearly with U up to 2e5
    Section IV; used for the integral over 10-13.6 eV and the U^2 scaling; PDR intensities are only approximately represented by a single scaling factor.
  • ad hoc to paper sigma_3 is independent of photon energy, tau_1 is independent of E1 and E3, and G is a delta function delta(E1-E3-Delta_E)
    Explicit simplifying assumptions after Eq. 5; they are not derived from experiment and directly set the form of Eq. 6.
  • ad hoc to paper In the abundance comparison, every grain with radius larger than 10 angstrom is coated by a pure benzene mantle of thickness half the grain radius and density 1.4 g cm-3
    Section IV before Eq. 9; this maximizes the surface contribution and is not representative of real mixed icy mantles, as the paper itself notes.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Photolysis of Aromatic Hydrocarbons Adsorbed on the Surfaces of Cosmic Dust Grains." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/T7J3XVPK

@misc{pith2026190804356,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Photolysis of Aromatic Hydrocarbons Adsorbed on the Surfaces of Cosmic Dust Grains},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/T7J3XVPK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04356}
}
read the original abstract

The work is devoted to the adaptation of the results of laboratory studies of the laser-induced dissociation of molecules of benzene adsorbed on a quartz substrate to the conditions of the interstellar medium. Adsorption was performed under conditions of low temperature and deep vacuum. The difference between the photolysis of adsorbed molecules and molecules in the gas phase is identified. Significance of process of photolytic desorption in the interstellar conditions is analyzed, in particular, in the conditions of photodissociation regions. It is shown that the efficiency and dissociation channels of photolysis of adsorbed and gas phase benzene differ substantially. It is concluded that the photolysis of aromatic hydrocarbons adsorbed on the interstellar dust grains contributes a negligible fraction to the abundance of small hydrocarbons in the interstellar medium.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.04356 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Dependence of the number of desorbed hydrogen atoms a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Dependence of the ratio of the number of acetylene mol [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Dependence of the ratio of the number of hydrogen atom [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [31]

    F. J. Capalbo, Y. B´ enilan, N. Fray, M. Schwell, N. Champ ion, E.-T. Es-Sebbar, T. T. Koskinen, L. Ivan, and R. V. Yelle, Icarus 265, 95 (2016), URL https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01232622

    work page 2016

  2. [1]

    F. C. Gillett, W. J. Forrest, and K. M. Merrill, Astrophys . J. 183, 87 (1973)

    work page 1973

  3. [2]

    Sellgren, M

    K. Sellgren, M. W. Werner, and H. L. Dinerstein, ApJL 271, L13 (1983)

    work page 1983

  4. [3]

    D. K. Aitken, P. F. Roche, P. M. Spenser, and B. Jones, MNRAS 195, 921 (1981)

    work page 1981

  5. [4]

    Leger and J

    A. Leger and J. L. Puget, A&A 137, L5 (1984)

    work page 1984

  6. [5]

    L. J. Allamandola, D. M. Hudgins, and S. A. Sandford, ApJL 511, L115 (1999)

    work page 1999

  7. [6]

    Sellgren, T

    K. Sellgren, T. Y. Brooke, R. G. Smith, and T. R. Geballe, Ap JL 449, L69 (1995), astro- ph/9508056

    work page arXiv 1995

  8. [7]

    L. J. Allamandola, in EAS Publications Series , edited by C. Joblin and A. G. G. M. Tielens (2011), vol. 46 of EAS Publications Series , pp. 305–317

    work page 2011

Show all 35 references
  1. [8]

    J. Pety, D. Teyssier, D. Foss´ e, M. Gerin, E. Roueff, A. Abe rgel, E. Habart, and J. Cernicharo, A&A 435, 885 (2005), astro-ph/0501339

    2005 arXiv

  2. [9]

    V. V. Guzm´ an, J. Pety, J. R. Goicoechea, M. Gerin, E. Roue ff, P. Gratier, and K. I. ¨Oberg, ApJL 800, L33 (2015), 1502.02325

    2015 arXiv

  3. [10]

    H. W. Jochims, E. Ruhl, H. Baumgartel, S. Tobita, and S. Le ach, Astrophys. J. 420, 307 (1994)

    1994

  4. [11]

    Allain, S

    T. Allain, S. Leach, and E. Sedlmayr, A&A 305, 602 (1996)

    1996

  5. [12]

    Visser, V

    R. Visser, V. C. Geers, C. P. Dullemond, J.-C. Augereau, K. M. Pontoppidan, and E. F. van Dishoeck, A&A 466, 229 (2007), astro-ph/0701606

    2007 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Le Page, T

    V. Le Page, T. P. Snow, and V. M. Bierbaum, ApJS 132, 233 (2001)

    2001

  7. [14]

    M. S. Murga, S. A. Khoperskov, and D. S. Wiebe, Astronomy Reports 60, 233 (2016), 1612.00419

    2016 arXiv

  8. [15]

    J. Zhen, P. Castellanos, D. M. Paardekooper, N. Ligteri nk, H. Linnartz, L. Nahon, C. Joblin, and A. G. G. M. Tielens, ApJL 804, L7 (2015), 1505.00576

    2015 arXiv

  9. [16]

    P. A. Gerakines, W. A. Schutte, and P. Ehrenfreund, A&A 312, 289 (1996)

    1996

  10. [17]

    Cottin, M

    H. Cottin, M. H. Moore, and Y. B´ enilan, Astrophys. J. 590, 874 (2003)

    2003

  11. [18]

    K. I. ¨Oberg, E. F. van Dishoeck, H. Linnartz, and S. Andersson, Ast rophys. J. 718, 832 (2010), 1006.2190. 17

    2010 arXiv

  12. [19]

    K. I. ¨Oberg, Chemical Reviews 116, 9631 (2016)

    2016

  13. [20]

    V. N. Varakin, Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiol ogy A: Chemistry 356, 298 (2018), ISSN 1010-6030; 1873-2666

    2018

  14. [21]

    V. N. Varakin, Chemical Physics Letters 714, 114 (2019), ISSN 0009-2614

    2019

  15. [22]

    V. N. Varakin, Laser Physics 26, 016001 (2016), ISSN 1054-660X; 1555-6611

    2016

  16. [23]

    J. Zhen, P. Castellanos, D. M. Paardekooper, H. Linnart z, and A. G. G. M. Tielens, ApJL 797, L30 (2014), 1411.7230

    2014 arXiv

  17. [24]

    J. Zhen, D. Paardekooper, A. Candian, H. Linnartz, and A . Tielens, Chemical Physics Letters 592, 211 (2014), ISSN 0009-2614, URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0009261413014851

    2014

  18. [25]

    V. V. Kislov, T. L. Nguyen, A. M. Mebel, S. H. Lin, and S. C. Smith, The Journal of Chemical Physics 120, 7008 (2004)

    2004

  19. [26]

    G. B. Esplugues, S. Cazaux, R. Meijerink, M. Spaans, and C . P., A&A 52, 591 (2016)

    2016

  20. [27]

    Andrews, C

    H. Andrews, C. Boersma, M. W. Werner, J. Livingston, L. J. Allamandola, and A. G. G. M. Tielens, Astrophys. J. 807, 99 (2015)

    2015

  21. [28]

    K. M. Sandstrom, A. D. Bolatto, B. T. Draine, C. Bot, and S. St animirovi´ c, Astrophys. J. 715, 701 (2010), 1003.4516

    2010 arXiv

  22. [29]

    J. S. Mathis, P. G. Mezger, and N. Panagia, A&A 128, 212 (1983)

    1983

  23. [30]

    Kov´ acs, M

    T. Kov´ acs, M. Blitz, P. W Seakins, and M. Pilling, The Jou rnal of chemical physics 131, 204304 (2009)

    2009

  24. [32]

    J. R. Goicoechea, D. Teyssier, M. Etxaluze, P. F. Goldsm ith, V. Ossenkopf, M. Gerin, E. A. Bergin, J. H. Black, J. Cernicharo, S. Cuadrado, et al. , Astrophys. J. 812, 75 (2015), 1508.03801

    2015 arXiv

  25. [33]

    A. P. Jones, L. Fanciullo, M. K¨ ohler, L. Verstraete, V. Guillet, M. Bocchio, and N. Ysard, A&A 558, A62 (2013), 1411.6293

    2013 arXiv

  26. [34]

    J. C. Weingartner and B. T. Draine, Astrophys. J. 548, 296 (2001), astro-ph/0008146

    2001 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Bouwman, A

    J. Bouwman, A. L. Mattioda, H. Linnartz, and L. J. Allaman d ola, A&A 525, A93 (2011)

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.