3.9 Article

ALMA Observations of Io Going into and Coming out of Eclipse

期刊

PLANETARY SCIENCE JOURNAL
卷 1, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

IOP Publishing Ltd
DOI: 10.3847/PSJ/abb93d

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Foundation, NSF grant [AST-1313485]
  2. ANID basal [AFB170002]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present 1 mm observations constructed from Atacama Large (sub)Millimeter Array (ALMA) data of SO2, SO, and KCl when Io went from sunlight into eclipse (2018 March 20) and vice versa (2018 September 2 and 11). There is clear evidence of volcanic plumes on March 20 and September 2. The plumes distort the line profiles, causing high-velocity (greater than or similar to 500 m s(-1)) wings and red-/blueshifted shoulders in the line profiles. During eclipse ingress, the SO2 flux density dropped exponentially, and the atmosphere re-formed in a linear fashion when reemerging in sunlight, with a post-eclipse brightening after similar to 10 minutes. While both the in-eclipse decrease and in-sunlight increase in SO was more gradual than for SO2, the fact that SO decreased at all is evidence that self-reactions at the surface are important and fast, and that in-sunlight photolysis of SO2 is the dominant source of SO. Disk-integrated SO2 in-sunlight flux densities are similar to 2-3 times higher than in eclipse, indicative of a roughly 30%-50% contribution from volcanic sources to the atmosphere. Typical column densities and temperatures are N approximate to (1.5 +/- 0.3) x 10(16) cm(-2) and T approximate to 220-320 K both in sunlight and in eclipse, while the fractional coverage of the gas is two to three times lower in eclipse than in sunlight. The low-level SO2 emissions present during eclipse may be sourced by stealth volcanism or be evidence of a layer of noncondensible gases preventing complete collapse of the SO2 atmosphere. The melt in magma chambers at different volcanoes must differ in composition to explain the absence of SO and SO2, but simultaneous presence of KCl over Ulgen Patera.

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

3.9
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