4.6 Article

DETECTION OF E-CYANOMETHANIMINE TOWARD SAGITTARIUS B2(N) IN THE GREEN BANK TELESCOPE PRIMOS SURVEY

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL LETTERS
卷 765, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/2041-8205/765/1/L10

关键词

catalogs; ISM: abundances; ISM: individual objects (SgrB2N); ISM: molecules; methods: laboratory; surveys

资金

  1. NSF Centers for Chemical Innovation [CHE-0847919]
  2. NSF Chemistry [CHE-1213200]
  3. Virginia-North Carolina Alliance, a NSF Louis Stokes Alliance for Minority Participation [HRD-1202181]
  4. National Radio Astronomy Observatory
  5. Direct For Education and Human Resources
  6. Division Of Human Resource Development [1202181] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  7. Division Of Chemistry
  8. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien [1213200] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The detection of E-cyanomethanimine (E-HNCHCN) toward Sagittarius B2(N) is made by comparing the publicly available Green Bank Telescope (GBT) PRIMOS survey spectra to laboratory rotational spectra from a reaction product screening experiment. The experiment uses broadband molecular rotational spectroscopy to monitor the reaction products produced in an electric discharge source using a gas mixture of NH3 and CH3CN. Several transition frequency coincidences between the reaction product screening spectra and previously unassigned interstellar rotational transitions in the PRIMOS survey have been assigned to E-cyanomethanimine. A total of eight molecular rotational transitions of this molecule between 9 and 50 GHz are observed with the GBT. E-cyanomethanimine, often called the HCN dimer, is an important molecule in prebiotic chemistry because it is a chemical intermediate in proposed synthetic routes of adenine, one of the two purine nucleobases found in DNA and RNA. New analyses of the rotational spectra of both E-cyanomethanimine and Z-cyanomethanimine that incorporate previous millimeter-wave measurements are also reported.

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