Paper detail

Estimation of high-resolution dust column density maps. Comparison of modified black-body fits and radiative transfer modelling

Sub-millimetre dust emission is often used to derive the column density N of dense interstellar clouds. The observations consist of data at several wavelengths but of variable resolution. We examine two procedures that been proposed for the estimation of high resolution N maps. Method A uses a low-resolution temperature map combined with higher resolution intensity data while Method B combines N estimates from different wavelength ranges. Our aim is to determine the accuracy of the methods relative to the true column densities and the estimates obtainable with radiative transfer modelling. We use magnetohydrodynamical (MHD) simulations and radiative transfer calculations to simulate sub-millimetre observations at the wavelengths of the Herschel Space Observatory. The observations are analysed with the methods and the results compared to the true values and to the results from radiative transfer modelling of observations. Both methods A and B give relatively reliable column density estimates at the resolution of 250um data while also making use of the longer wavelengths. For high signal-to-noise data, the results of Method B are better correlated with the true column density, while Method A is less sensitive to noise. When the cloud has internal heating, results of Method B are consistent with those that would be obtained with high-resolution data. Because of line-of-sight temperature variations, these underestimate the true column density and, because of a favourable cancellation of errors, Method A can sometimes give more correct values. Radiative transfer modelling, even with very simple 3D cloud models, can provide better results. However, the complexity of the models required for improvements increases rapidly with the complexity and opacity of the clouds.

preprint2013arXivOpen 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.