Paper detail

Do we really know the dust? Systematics and uncertainties of the mid-infrared spectral analysis methods

The spectral region around 10 micrometer, showing prominent dust emission bands, is commonly used to derive the chemical composition of protoplanetary dust. Different analysis methods have been proposed for this purpose, but so far, no comparative test has been performed to test their validity. We calculated model spectra of disk models with different geometries and central sources, using a 2D radiative transfer code. These spectra were then fitted in a blind test using four different spectral decomposition methods. We studied the effect of disk structure (flared vs. flat), inclination angle, size of the inner disk hole and stellar luminosity on the fitted chemical composition. Our results show that the derived dust compositions by all methods deviate systematically from the real chemical composition. Out of the four tested spectral decomposition methods, our new two-layer temperature distribution method, differs the least from the input dust composition and the results show the weakest systematic effects. The reason for the deviations of the results given by other methods lies in their simplifying assumptions (e.g. single average grain temperature or one component continuum). We also tested the influence of different noise levels on the results of the spectral decomposition methods. We find that, for ground-based observations (8-13 micrometer) the expected uncertainty in the value of the crystallinity is about 11% for a signal-to-noise ratio of 100, while for space-based observations (7-17 micrometer) the uncertainty is about 5%. On the basis of our results, we propose a recipe for the analysis and interpretation of dust spectroscopy data in the mid-infrared which should be especially valuable for analysing Spitzer data and ground-based infrared spectroscopy data in the 10 micrometer window.

preprint2009arXivOpen 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.