4.6 Article

The nature of the dense core population in the Pipe Nebula:: A survey of NH3, CCS, and HC5N molecular line emission

Journal

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL SUPPLEMENT SERIES
Volume 174, Issue 2, Pages 396-425

Publisher

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1086/522889

Keywords

dust, extinction; ISM : globules; ISM : molecules; stars : formation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Recent extinction studies of the Pipe Nebula (d = 130 pc) reveal many cores spanning a range in mass from 0.2 to 20.4M(circle dot). These dense cores were identified via their high extinction and comprise a starless population in a very early stage of development. Here we present a survey of NH3 (1,1), NH3 (2,2), CCS (2(1)-1(0)), and HC5N (9,8) emission toward 46 of these cores. An atlas of the 2MASS extinction maps is also presented. In total, we detect 63% of the cores in NH3 (1,1), 22% in NH3 (2,2), 28% in CCS, and 9% in HC5N emission. We find the cores are associated with dense gas (similar to 10(4) cm(-3)) with 9: 5 K <= T-K <= 17 K. Compared to (CO)-O-18, we find the NH3 line widths are systematically narrower, implying that the NH3 is tracing the dense component of the gas and that these cores are relatively quiescent. We find no correlation between core line width and size. The derived properties of the Pipe cores are similar to cores within other low-mass star-forming regions: the only differences are that the Pipe cores have weaker NH3 emission and most show no current star formation as evidenced by the lack of embedded infrared sources. Such weak NH3 emission could arise due to low column densities and abundances or reduced excitation due to relatively low core volume densities. Either alternative implies that the cores are relatively young. Thus, the Pipe cores represent an excellent sample of dense cores in which to study the initial conditions for star formation and the earliest stages of core formation and evolution.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available