4.7 Article

Revised models of interstellar nitrogen isotopic fractionation

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stx3030

关键词

astrochemistry; molecular processes; comets: general; meteorites, meteors, meteoroids; ISM: clouds; ISM: molecules

资金

  1. Swedish National Space Board
  2. NASA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Nitrogen-bearing molecules in cold molecular clouds exhibit a range of isotopic fractionation ratios and these molecules may be the precursors of N-15 enrichments found in comets and meteorites. Chemical model calculations indicate that atom-molecular ion and ion-molecule reactions could account for most of the fractionation patterns observed. However, recent quantum-chemical computations demonstrate that several of the key processes are unlikely to occur in dense clouds. Related model calculations of dense cloud chemistry show that the revised N-15 enrichments fail to match observed values. We have investigated the effects of these reaction rate modifications on the chemical model of Wirstrom et al. (2012) for which there are significant physical and chemical differences with respect to other models. We have included N-15 fractionation of CN in neutral-neutral reactions and also updated rate coefficients for key reactions in the nitrogen chemistry. We find that the revised fractionation rates have the effect of suppressing N-15 enrichment in ammonia at all times, while the depletion is even more pronounced, reaching N-14/N-15 ratios of > 2000. Taking the updated nitrogen chemistry into account, no significant enrichment occurs in HCN or HNC, contrary to observational evidence in dark clouds and comets, although the N-14/N-15 ratio can still be below 100 in CN itself. However, such low CN abundances are predicted that the updated model falls short of explaining the bulk N-15 enhancements observed in primitive materials. It is clear that alternative fractionating reactions are necessary to reproduce observations, so further laboratory and theoretical studies are urgently needed.

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