4.7 Article

Probing Episodic Accretion in Very Low Luminosity Objects

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 854, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa7f6

关键词

astrochemistry; ISM: clouds; stars: formation; stars: low-mass; stars: protostars

资金

  1. Ministry of Science and Technology (MoST) of Taiwan [102-2119-M-007-004-MY3, 105-2119-M-007-024, 106-2119-M-007-021-MY3]
  2. University of Leeds
  3. [MoST 106-2112-M-001-010]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Episodic accretion has been proposed as a solution to the long-standing luminosity problem in star formation; however, the process remains poorly understood. We present observations of line emission from N2H+ and CO isotopologues using the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) in the envelopes of eight very low Luminosity Objects (VeLLOs). In five of the sources the spatial distribution of emission from N2H+ and CO isotopologues shows a clear anticorrelation. It is proposed that this is tracing the CO snow line in the envelopes: N2H+ emission is depleted toward the center of these sources, in contrast to the CO isotopologue emission, which exhibits a peak. The positions of the CO snow lines traced by the N2H+ emission are located at much larger radii than those calculated using the current luminosities of the central sources. This implies that these five sources have experienced a recent accretion burst because the CO snow line would have been pushed outward during the burst because of the increased luminosity of the central star. The N2H+ and CO isotopologue emission from DCE161, one of the other three sources, is most likely tracing a transition disk at a later evolutionary stage. Excluding DCE161, five out of seven sources (i.e., similar to 70%) show signatures of a recent accretion burst. This fraction is larger than that of the Class 0/I sources studied by Jorgensen et al. and Frimann et al., suggesting that the interval between accretion episodes in VeLLOs is shorter than that in Class 0/I sources.

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