4.6 Article

High mass star formation in the infrared dark cloud G11.11-0.12

期刊

ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS
卷 447, 期 3, 页码 929-936

出版社

EDP SCIENCES S A
DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361:20042145

关键词

masers; stars : formation; molecular data; radiative transfer; astronomical databases : miscellaneous

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We report detection of moderate to high-mass star formation in an infrared dark cloud (G11.11-0.12) where we discovered class II methanol and water maser emission at 6.7 GHz and 22.2 GHz, respectively. We also observed the object in ammonia inversion transitions. Strong emission from the (3, 3) line indicates a hot (60 K) compact component associated with the maser emission. The line width of the hot component (4 km s(-1)), as well as the methanol maser detection, are indicative of high mass star formation. To further constrain the physical parameters of the source, we derived the spectral energy distribution (SED) of the dust continuum by analysing data from the 2MASS survey, HIRAS, MSX, the Spitzer Space Telescope, and interferometric 3 mm observations. The SED was modelled in a radiative transfer program: a) the stellar luminosity equals similar to 1200 L. corresponding to a ZAMS star of 8 M.; b) the bulk of the envelope has a temperature of 19 K; c) the mass of the remnant protostellar cloud in an area 8 x 10(17) cm or 15 '' across amounts to 500 M., if assuming standard dust of the diffuse medium, and to about 60 M., should the grains be fluffy and have ice mantles; d) the corresponding visual extinction towards the star, A(V), is a few hundred magnitudes. The near IR data can be explained by scattering from tenuous material above a hypothetical disk. The class II methanol maser lines are spread out in velocity over 11 km s(-1). To explain the kinematics of the masing spots, we propose that they are located in a Kepler disk at a distance of about 250 AU. The dust temperatures there are around 150 K, high enough to evaporate methanol-containing ice mantles.

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

4.6
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