4.7 Article

Some diffuse interstellar bands related to interstellar C2 molecules

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 584, 期 1, 页码 339-356

出版社

UNIV CHICAGO PRESS
DOI: 10.1086/345665

关键词

ISM : lines and bands; ISM : molecules

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We have investigated the correlations between the equivalent widths of 21 selected diffuse interstellar bands (DIBs) and the corresponding interstellar column densities N(C-2), N(CN), and N(CH), toward 53 stars with color excesses 0.11less than or equal to E(B-V)less than or equal to1.99. The observational data were derived primarily from echelle spectra acquired at R=38,000 as part of our extensive, continuing survey of the bands. All but six of the 53 final spectra show signal-to-noise ratios greater than or equal to800 at 5780 Angstrom. The principal result presented here is that seven of the 21 bands prove to be examples of the C-2 DIBs, a class of weak, narrow bands whose normalized equivalent widths W-lambda(X)/W-lambda(lambda6196) are well correlated specifically with N(C-2)/E(B-V) via power laws. In contrast, the similarly normalized equivalent widths of the 14 other, well-known DIBs analyzed here are uncorrelated, or weakly anticorrelated, with N(C-2)/E(B-V), to within the observational uncertainties. Thus, the polyatomic molecule(s) presumed to cause these seven C-2 DIBs may bear a direct chemical relation to C-2 that is not shared by the polyatomic molecules putatively responsible for the other 14 bands. The C-2 DIBs also show positive correlations with N(CN)/E(B-V) and N(CH)/E(B-V) in our particular sample of light paths, although generally with shallower slopes in the case of N(CN) and with greater scatter in the case of N(CH). Eleven additional C-2 DIBs are also identified but are not analyzed here. Among the 18 C-2 DIBs identified, four apparently have not been previously detected. The lambda4963 band is generally the strongest of the 18 C-2 DIBs, while the lambda4734 band shows the most sensitive correlation with N(C-2).

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