Paper detail

Accuracy of core mass estimates in simulated observations of dust emission

We study the reliability of mass estimates obtained for molecular cloud cores using sub-millimetre and infrared dust emission. We use magnetohydrodynamic simulations and radiative transfer to produce synthetic observations with spatial resolution and noise levels typical of Herschel surveys. We estimate dust colour temperatures using different pairs of intensities, calculate column densities and compare the estimated masses with the true values. We compare these results to the case when all five Herschel wavelengths are available. We investigate the effects of spatial variations of dust properties and the influence of embedded heating sources. Wrong assumptions of dust opacity and its spectral index beta can cause significant systematic errors in mass estimates. These are mainly multiplicative and leave the slope of the mass spectrum intact, unless cores with very high optical depth are included. Temperature variations bias colour temperature estimates and, in quiescent cores with optical depths higher than for normal stable cores, masses can be underestimated by up to one order of magnitude. When heated by internal radiation sources the observations recover the true mass spectra. The shape, although not the position, of the mass spectrum is reliable against observational errors and biases introduced in the analysis. This changes only if the cores have optical depths much higher than expected for basic hydrostatic equilibrium conditions. Observations underestimate the value of beta whenever there are temperature variations along the line of sight. A bias can also be observed when the true beta varies with wavelength. Internal heating sources produce an inverse correlation between colour temperature and beta that may be difficult to separate from any intrinsic beta(T) relation of the dust grains. This suggests caution when interpreting the observed mass spectra and the spectral indices.

preprint2011arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access5 authors1 topic

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 map preview

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.