Paper detail

The impact of the presence of water ice on the analysis of debris disk observations

The analysis of debris disk observations is often based on the assumption of a dust phase composed of compact spherical grains consisting of astronomical silicate. Instead, observations indicate the existence of water ice in debris disks. We quantify the impact of water ice as a potential grain constituent in debris disks on the disk parameter values estimated from photometric and spatially resolved observations in the mid- and far-infrared. We simulated photometric measurements and radial profiles of debris disks containing water ice and analyzed them by applying a disk model purely consisting of astronomical silicate. Subsequently, we quantified the deviations between the derived and the true parameter values. As stars in central positions we discuss a $β$ Pic sibling and main-sequence stars with spectral types ranging from A0 to K5. To simulate observable quantities we employed selected observational scenarios regarding the choice of wavelengths and instrument characteristics. For the $β$ Pic stellar model and ice fractions $\geq 50\ \%$ the derived inner disk radius is biased by ice sublimation toward higher values. However, the derived slope of the radial density profile is mostly unaffected. Along with an increasing ice fraction, the slope of the grain size distribution is overestimated by up to a median factor of $\sim 1.2$ for an ice fraction of $90\ \%$ while the total disk mass is underestimated by a factor of $\sim 0.4$. The reliability of the derived minimum grain size strongly depends on the spectral type of the central star. For an A0-type star the minimum grain size can be underestimated by a factor of $\sim 0.2$, while for solar-like stars it is overestimated by up to a factor of $\sim 4 - 5$. Neglecting radial profile measurements and using solely photometric measurements, the factor of overestimation increases for solar-like stars up to $\sim 7 - 14$.

preprint2021arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 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.