Paper detail

From flux to dust mass: Does the grain-temperature distribution matter for estimates of cold dust masses in supernova remnants?

The amount of dust estimated from infrared to sub-millimetre (submm) observations strongly depends on assumptions of different grain sizes, compositions and optical properties. Here we use a simple model of thermal emission from cold silicate/carbon dust at a range of dust grain temperatures and fit the spectral energy distribution (SED) of the Crab Nebula as a test. This can lower the derived dust mass for the Crab by ~50% and 30-40% for astronomical silicates and amorphous carbon grains compared to recently published values (0.25M_sun -> 0.12M_sun and 0.12M_sun -> 0.072M_sun, respectively), but the implied dust mass can also increase by as much as almost a factor of six (0.25M_sun -> 1.14M_sun and 0.12M_sun -> 0.71M_sun) depending on assumptions regarding the sizes/temperatures of the coldest grains. The latter values are clearly unrealistic due to the expected metal budget, though. Furthermore, we show by a simple numerical experiment that if a cold-dust component does have a grain-temperature distribution, it is almost unavoidable that a two-temperature fit will yield an incorrect dust mass estimate. But we conclude that grain temperatures is not a greater uncertainty than the often poorly constrained emissivities (i.e., material properties) of cosmic dust, although there is clearly a need for improved dust emission models. The greatest complication associated with deriving dust masses still arises in the uncertainty in the dust composition.

preprint2015arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 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.