The GUAPOS project

Le résumé fourni par la source

The study of the chemical composition of star-forming regions is key to understanding the chemical ingredients available during the formation of planetary systems. Because the chemical inventory of interstellar dust grains in the prestellar phases might be altered by protostellar warming, an alternative to inferring the chemical composition of the grains might be to observe regions that are affected by shocks associated with molecular outflows. These shocks are able to desorb the molecules and might produce less chemical processing because the timescales are shorter. We present a detailed study of the chemical reservoir of a shocked region located in the G31.41+0.31 protocluster using data from the G31.41+0.31 Unbiased ALMA sPectral Observational Survey (GUAPOS). We report the detection of 30 molecular species (plus 18 isotopologs) and derived the column densities. We compared the molecular ratios in the shocked region with those derived toward the hot core of G31.41+0.31. They are poorly correlated, with the exception of N-bearing species. Our results confirm observationally that a different level of chemical alteration is present in hot cores and in shocks. While the former likely alter the molecular ratios by thermal processing during longer timescales, the latter might represent freshly desorbed material that constitutes a better proxy of the composition of the ice mantle. The similarity of the molecular ratios of the N-bearing species in the G31.41+0.31 shock and the hot core suggests that these species are predominantly formed at early evolutionary stages. Interestingly, the abundances in the G31.41+0.31 shock are better correlated with other shock-dominated regions (two protostellar outflows and a molecular cloud in the Galactic center). This suggests that gas-phase chemistry after shock-induced ejection from grains is negligible and that the composition of the ice mantle is similar regardless of the Galactic environment.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.