Paper detail

Reliability of NH3 as the temperature probe of cold cloud cores

The temperature is a central parameter affecting the chemical and physical properties of dense cores of interstellar clouds and their evolution to star formation. The chemistry and the dust properties are temperature dependent and the interpretation of observation requires the knowledge of the temperature and its variations. Measurement of the gas kinetic temperature is possible with molecular line spectroscopy, the ammonia molecule, NH3, being the most commonly used tracer. We want to determine the accuracy of the temperature estimates derived from ammonia spectra. The normal interpretation of NH3 observations assumes that all the hyperfine line components are tracing the same gas volume. In the case of temperature gradients they may be sensitive to different layers and cause errors in the optical depth and gas temperature estimates. We examine a series of spherical cloud models, 1.0 and 0.5 M_Sun Bonnor-Ebert spheres, with different radial temperature profiles. We calculate synthetic NH3 spectra and compare the derived column densities and temperatures to the true values. For high signal-to-noise observations, the estimated gas kinetic temperatures are within ~0.3 K of the real mass averaged temperature and the column densities are correct to within ~10%. When the S/N ratio of the (2,2) spectrum decreases below 10, the temperature errors are of the order of 1K but without a significant bias. When the density of the models is increased by a factor of a few, the results begin to show significant bias because of the saturation of the (1,1) main group. The ammonia spectra are found to be a reliable tracer of the mass averaged gas temperature. Because the radial temperature profiles of the cores are not well constrained, the central temperature could still differ from this value. If the cores are optically very thick, there are no guarantees of the accuracy.

preprint2012arXivOpen 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.