Paper detail

CO and [CII] line emission of molecular clouds -- the impact of stellar feedback and non-equilibrium chemistry

We analyse synthetic $^{12}$CO, $^{13}$CO, and [CII] emission maps of simulated molecular clouds of the SILCC-Zoom project, which include an on-the-fly evolution of H$_2$, CO, and C$^+$. We use simulations of hydrodynamical and magnetohydrodynamical clouds, both with and without stellar feedback. We introduce a novel post-processing of the C$^+$ abundance using CLOUDY, to account for further ionization states of carbon due to stellar radiation. We report the first self-consistent synthetic emission maps of [CII] in feedback bubbles, largely devoid of emission inside them, as recently found in observations. The C$^+$ mass is only poorly affected by stellar feedback but the [CII] luminosity increases by $50 - 85$ per cent compared to runs without feedback. Furthermore, we investigate the capability of the CO/[CII] line ratio as a tracer of the amount of H$_2$ in the clouds and their evolutionary stage. We obtain, for both $^{12}$CO and $^{13}$CO, no clear trend of the luminosity ratio, $L_\mathrm{CO}/L_\mathrm{[CII]}$. It can therefore \textit{not} be used as a reliable measure of the H$_2$ mass fraction. We note a monotonic relation between $L_\mathrm{CO}/L_\mathrm{[CII]}$ and the H$_2$ fraction when considering the ratio for individual pixels of our synthetic maps, but with large scatter. Moreover, we show that assuming chemical equilibrium results in an overestimation of H$_2$ and CO masses of up to 110 and 30 per cent, respectively, and in an underestimation of H and C$^+$ masses of 65 and 7 per cent, respectively. In consequence, $L_\mathrm{CO}$ would be overestimated by up to 50 per cent, and $L_\mathrm{C[II]}$ be underestimated by up to 35 per cent. Hence, the assumption of chemical equilibrium in molecular cloud simulations introduces intrinsic errors of a factor of up to $\sim2$ in chemical abundances, luminosities and luminosity ratios.

preprint2022arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access6 authors2 topics

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.