4.3 Article

A Catalog of Molecular Clumps and Cores with Infall Signatures

期刊

出版社

NATL ASTRONOMICAL OBSERVATORIES, CHIN ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1088/1674-4527/ac7d9d

关键词

stars: formation; ISM: molecules; ISM: kinematics and dynamics; radio lines: ISM

资金

  1. National Key R&D Program of China [2017YFA0402702]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [11873093, U2031202]
  3. NSFC [11903083]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The research of infall motion is a common means to study molecular cloud dynamics and the early process of star formation. Many works have been done on infall, and this study catalogs 456 infall sources and classifies them into clumps and cores based on their sizes.
The research of infall motion is a common means to study molecular cloud dynamics and the early process of star formation. Many works had been done in-depth research on infall. We searched the literature related to infall study of molecular cloud since 1994, summarized the infall sources identified by the authors. A total of 456 infall sources are cataloged. We classify them into high-mass and low-mass sources, in which the high-mass sources are divided into three evolutionary stages: prestellar, protostellar and H ii region. We divide the sources into clumps and cores according to their sizes. The H-2 column density values range from 1.21 x 10(21) to 9.75 x 10(24) cm(-2), with a median value of 4.17 x 10(22) cm(-2). The H-2 column densities of high-mass and low-mass sources are significantly separated. The median value of infall velocity for high-mass clumps is 1.12 km s(-1), and the infall velocities of low-mass cores are virtually all less than 0.5 km s(-1). There is no obvious difference between different stages of evolution. The mass infall rates of low-mass cores are between 10(-7) and 10(-4) M (circle dot)yr(-1), and those of high-mass clumps are between 10(-4) and 10(-1) M (circle dot)yr(-1) with only one exception. We do not find that the mass infall rates vary with evolutionary stages.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据