Paper detail

The CO2 Abundance in Comets C/2012 K1 (PanSTARRS), C/2012 K5 (LINEAR), and 290P/Jager as Measured with Spitzer

We present analysis of observations of CO2 and OI emission in three comets to measure the CO2 abundance and evaluate the possibility of employing observations of OI emission in comets as a proxy for CO2. We obtained NIR imaging sensitive to CO2 of comets C/2012 K1 (PanSTARRS), C/2012 K5 (LINEAR), and 290P/Jager with the IRAC instrument on Spitzer. We acquired observations of OI emission in these comets with the ARCES echelle spectrometer mounted on the 3.5-meter telescope at Apache Point Observatory and observations of OH with the Swift observatory (PanSTARRS) and with Keck HIRES (Jager). The CO2/H2O ratios derived from the Spitzer images are 12.6 +/- 1.3% (PanSTARRS), 28.9 +/- 3.6% (LINEAR), and 31.3 +/- 4.2% (Jager). These abundances are derived under the assumption that contamination from CO emission is negligible. The CO2 abundance for PanSTARRS is close to the average abundance measured in comets at similar heliocentric distance to date, while the abundances measured for LINEAR and Jager are significantly larger than the average abundance. From the coma morphology observed in PanSTARRS and the assumed gas expansion velocity, we derive a rotation period for the nucleus of about 9.2 hours. Comparison of H2O production rates derived from ARCES and Swift data, as well as other observations, suggest the possibility of sublimation from icy grains in the inner coma. We evaluate the possibility that the OI emission can be employed as a proxy for CO2 by comparing CO2/H2O ratios inferred from the OI lines to those measured directly by Spitzer. We find that for PanSTARRS we can reproduce the observed CO2 abundance to an accuracy of ~20%. For LINEAR and Jager, we were only able to obtain upper limits on the CO2 abundance inferred from the OI lines. These upper limits are consistent with the CO2 abundances measured by Spitzer.

preprint2015arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access7 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.