4.7 Article

Chemical Variation among Protostellar Cores: Dependence on Prestellar Core Conditions

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 897, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab994a

关键词

Star formation; Astrochemistry

资金

  1. NAOJ ALMA Scientific Research Grant [2019-13B]
  2. [18H05222]
  3. [17K14245]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hot corino chemistry and warm carbon chain chemistry (WCCC) are driven by gas-grain interactions in star-forming cores: radical-radical recombination reactions to form complex organic molecules (COMs) in the ice mantle, sublimation of CH(4)and COMs, and their subsequent gas-phase reactions. These chemical features are expected to depend on the composition of the ice mantle, which is set in the prestellar phase. We calculated the gas-grain chemical reaction network considering a layered ice mantle structure in star-forming cores to investigate how the hot corino chemistry and WCCC depend on the physical condition of the static phase before the onset of gravitational collapse. We found that WCCC becomes more active if the temperature is lower, or the visual extinction is lower in the static phase, or the static phase is longer. The dependence of hot corino chemistry on the static-phase condition is more complex. While CH3OH is less abundant in the models with a warmer static phase, some COMs are formed efficiently in those warm models because there are various formation paths of COMs. If the visual extinction is lower, photolysis makes COMs less abundant in the static phase. Once the collapse starts and visual extinction increases, however, COMs can be formed efficiently. The duration of the static phase does not largely affect COM abundances. The chemical diversity between prototypical hot corinos and hybrid sources, in which both COMs and carbon chains are reasonably abundant, can be explained by the variation of prestellar conditions. Deficiency of gaseous COMs in prototypical WCCC sources is, however, hard to reproduce within our models.

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

4.7
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