2017
DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424287
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Modelling clumpy photon-dominated regions in 3D

Abstract: Context. Models of photon-dominated regions (PDRs) still fail to fully reproduce some of the observed properties. In particular they do not reproduce the combination of the intensities of different PDR cooling lines together with the chemical stratification, as observed for example for the Orion Bar PDR. Aims. We aim to construct a numerical PDR model, KOSMA-τ 3D, to simulate full spectral cubes of line emission from arbitrary PDRs in three dimensions (3D). The model will reproduce the intensity of the main co… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
66
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 46 publications
(70 citation statements)
references
References 67 publications
(78 reference statements)
4
66
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Williams & Best, 2014), but is also used by the star formation/ISM community. For example, the Orion Bar PDR (Pellegrini et al, 2009;Andree-Labsch et al, 2017), Sgr B2 (Lis & Goldsmith, 1990;Schmiedeke et al, 2016) and Taurus Molecular Cloud 1 (TMC-1; see e.g. Gratier et al 2016) are just a few targets that have been the subject of bespoke modelling.…”
Section: Why Synthetic Observations?mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Williams & Best, 2014), but is also used by the star formation/ISM community. For example, the Orion Bar PDR (Pellegrini et al, 2009;Andree-Labsch et al, 2017), Sgr B2 (Lis & Goldsmith, 1990;Schmiedeke et al, 2016) and Taurus Molecular Cloud 1 (TMC-1; see e.g. Gratier et al 2016) are just a few targets that have been the subject of bespoke modelling.…”
Section: Why Synthetic Observations?mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…4.1 within a factor ∼ 1.25. Hogerheijde et al (1995); Walmsley et al (2000) and Andree-Labsch et al (2017) described the geometry of the Orion bar where the trapezium stars illuminate the PDR, which changes from a face-on to an edge-on orientation along the varying length of the line of sight. This geometry explains the [C I] peak which is symmetric around the peak of the CO emission (Tauber et al 1994).…”
Section: Comparison With the Pdr Of The Orion Barmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These different results may be somehow related to the non-uniform matter distribution within the Orion Bar. Goicoechea et al (2016) and Andree-Labsch et al (2017) demonstrate a clumpiness of the Orion Bar. So, some disagreement between our results and the observed picture can be caused by the fine structure of the PDR unresolved in our model.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…In other words, we only consider the PDR, but not the ionized region. We calculated the 'M42 inner' radiation field at a distance of 0.22 parsec, which corresponds to the projected distance 111 ′′ from the main ionizing star to the Bar according to Pellegrini et al (2009) andAndree-Labsch et al (2017), and then passed the radiation field to the described above plane-parallel modification of the MARION code. The intensity of the radiation field is χ = 4.4 · 10 4 in units of the Draine field (Draine (1979) Dust-gas interaction Tielens (2005) 1978) in the wavelength range of 91.2 < λ ≤ 200 nm.…”
Section: Model Calculationmentioning
confidence: 99%