Paper detail

A Principal Component Analysis of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon emission in NGC 7023

We carried out a principal component analysis (PCA) of the fluxes of five polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) bands at 6.2, 7.7, 8.6, 11.0, and 11.2 $μ$m in the reflection nebula NGC 7023 comprising of the photodissociation region (PDR) and a cavity. We find that only two principal components (PCs) are required to explain the majority of the observed variance in PAH fluxes (98 %). The first PC ($PC_{1}$), which is the primary driver of the variance, represents the total PAH emission. The second PC ($PC_{2}$) is related to the ionization state of PAHs across the nebula. This is consistent with the results of a similar analysis of the PAH emission in NGC 2023. The biplots and the correlations of PCs with the various PAH ratios show that there are two subsets of ionic bands with the 6.2 and 7.7 $μ$m bands forming one subset and the 8.6 and 11.0 $μ$m bands the other. However, the distinction between these subsets is only present in the PDR. We have also carried out a separate PCA analysis of the PAH fluxes, this time only considering variations in the cavity. This shows that in the cavity, $PC_{2}$ is not related to the charge state of PAHs, but possibly to structural molecular changes.

preprint2022arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.