Investigation_in_Physics

A Study of Outflows in the Milky Way

Thomas Owen

July 13, 2015

1

A Study of Outflows in the Milky Way • 2015

Contents

Lay Summary 3

1 Introduction 41.1 Star Formation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41.2 Classification of YSOs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

1.2.1 Low-Mass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51.2.2 High-Mass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

1.3 Jets and Outflows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2 Tables and Data 92.1 Data collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

2.1.1 Table 3: Basic Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92.1.2 Table 4: Physical parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

2.2 Discussion of sources used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102.2.1 Low to Intermediate-Mass Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102.2.2 High-Mass Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

3 Analysis and Discussion 133.1 Low to Intermediate-Mass YSOs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

3.1.1 Parameters Against Clump/Envelope Mass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133.1.2 Parameters Against Bolometric Luminosity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

3.2 High-Mass YSOs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143.2.1 Parameters Against Clump/Envelope Mass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143.2.2 Parameters Against Dynamical Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

3.3 Unifying Outflow Physics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

4 Summary and Conclusion 19

References 19

A First Appendix 23

2


Lay Summary

In the 1980’s, astronomers noticed that young stars that were still forming (called protostars)were sending out jets/outflows of gas into the environment around them. It was also observedthat these jets were split into two directions away from the star. Partly directed more towardsus (which makes it appear more blue) and partly away from us (which makes it look morered). Originally, it was thought that these high-speed jets were only for the biggest, mostmassive stars. However, as astronomers have studied this phenomena over time, they havenoticed that both small and large stars seem to show this effect.

People have questioned why these outflows exist and what purpose they serve. There are a fewreasons that scientists have worked out and an important one is to help stars slow down. Whenprotostars are forming they are rotating extremely fast. This is because they are pulling in gasfrom the cloud they are in with their strong gravity. The gas that is falling onto the protostarwould normally speed up as it gets pulled inward, and this would continually happen untilthe star stops pulling in material. Astronomers noticed that new stars are not spinning as fastas this would predict, so there must be a process that removes the rotation; this is where jetsbecome important. Scientists have worked on theories where these jets could allow the pro-tostar to keep growing to normal sizes while slowing down the material that they are pulling in.

An important question that people studying this phenomena have is whether more massivestars develop jets in the same way that the smaller ones do. This can help us to seewhether massive stars form similarly to smaller ones. Smaller stars are much easier forastronomers to observe, as the larger ones form in groups or ”clusters”. This makes itharder to distinguish between individual massive stars which means the objects and theirassociated jets are harder to study. Outflows and jets from higher mass protostars are stillbeing studied nonetheless, with advancing technology making this a slightly less difficult task.

The way these outflows are formed are also debated by scientists. There are various complextheories on the way that jets get launched from their parent object, but the generally believedidea is that they come from magnetic fields. These fields can be thought of as areas ofinfluence for a magnetic force and they exist all throughout the galaxy; for example, the Earthhas a magnetic field which protects us from solar radiation. The magnetic fields around aprotostar’s disk can get twisted as it rotates. The magnetic field releases energy as it windsround the disk, and this energy gets turned into ”wind energy”, carrying some of the materialwith it.

One way of looking for trends between forming small and high mass stars is to look at howpowerful their outflows are compared to how big they are. If there isn’t a big jump in theoutflow power between the smaller stars and the larger stars (rather a steady rise), then itsuggests that bigger stars are just ”scaled up” versions than the lower-mass ones.

3


1 Introduction

1.1 Star Formation

Star formation is the process of star birthwithin giant molecular clouds (GMCs) inspace (of masses≈ 104M� to 106M�). Low-mass star formation is believed to be well un-derstood, supported by a large amount of ob-servational evidence. Stars form from a smallfraction of the mass of a cloud after its col-lapse over time. The giant area of gas anddust is kept in hydrostatic equilibrium by theforces of gas pressure and gravity. Changesin these forces shift the cloud out of stabil-ity and cause it to expand/collapse, dependingon which force is dominating at a given time.This can be shown by the virial theorem

2K + U = 0 (1)

WhereK is the total internal kinetic energy ofthe cloud and U is the gravitational potentialenergy. If U > 2K then the cloud will col-lapse (Carroll and Ostlie, 2007). Magneticforces have to be taken into account with thisstability, as along with turbulence they cansupport against gravitational collapse. Am-bipolar diffusion; the decoupling of ionizedand neutral particles can occur, which essen-tially removes the field component and thiscan cause magnetic forces to be a less effec-tive form of support (Adams and Shu, 2007).The collapse of a molecular cloud can be self-isolated or ”triggered” in the sense that an ex-terior event can tip areas of the cloud out ofstability. Such causes of triggered star forma-tion include supernovae, cloud collisions andfeedback from jets (See chapter on outflows1.3). Without triggering, there may be caseswhere there is not enough dense matter to af-fect the rate that stars form, effectively reduc-

ing it (Elmegreen, 2011).Molecular clouds undergo isothermal col-

lapse locally as some regions meet the localJeans criterion: Mc > MJ . MJ is the Jeansmass, the maximum mass of a cloud or re-gion that can be within hydrostatic equilib-rium. From the definition of kinetic and gravi-tational energy and the virial theorem, this canbe shown as

MJ ≈(

5kT

GµmH

) 32(

3

4πρ0

) 12

. (2)

Gravitationally bound cores are then formed;this is known as hierarchical fragmentation.The collapsing gas fragments radiate awayenergy by releasing gravitational potential en-ergy while it accretes gas from its surround-ing environment. This continues until the thefragments become opaque hydrostatic cores.These cores contract to form class 0 protostars(Prialnik, 2009). It is believed that there areother components complicating the fragmen-tation process, such as rotational effects andmagnetic fields. Magnetic breaking is the pro-cess within the cloud where angular momen-tum is removed from by the twisting of mag-netic field lines along the equatorial plane.This twisting causes charged particles in thefield to exert a drag force, slowing down therotation of the cloud (Li et al., 2014). In thecase of rotationally induced fragmentation, itis theorized that magnetic breaking can helpto prevent to hinder the cloud collapse, butotherwise it is only effective during the pre-collapse phase (Boss, 2009).

High-mass (larger than 8 M�) star forma-tion on the other hand, is not as well un-derstood. There are a number of reasonswhy high-mass star formation is hard to ob-serve: Firstly, they occur much more rarelythan low-mass stars, they form within the cen-

4


tres of dense stellar clusters (Beuther et al.,2006) and they are still in a stage of accre-tion when they start to ignite hydrogen (Pallaand Stahler, 1993). This early ignition of hy-drogen suggests that the young stellar object(YSO) will have a high radiative pressure, ef-fectively stopping the accretion and settinga maximum mass limit. This poses a prob-lem, as stars with a mass much higher thanthis limit have been observed to exist (Kuiperet al., 2010).

A few theories exist to overcome this prob-lem are: core accretion, competitive accre-tion and stellar collisions. The first is the ex-tension of low-mass star formation, gas coresthat form from clumps then further collapseinto a star. This theory predicts that the initialmass function (IMF) (see below) is related tothe mass of the cores (Tan et al., 2014). Thesecond is the idea that accreting stars have tocompete with each other for a limited amountof mass. More massive initial stars (with ahigher gravitational attraction) or stars closerto the gas may out-compete the rest (Bonnellet al., 2006). The stellar collision works onthe idea that the dense core of the cluster ac-cretes nearby gas, reducing the cluster radiusand causing lower-mass stars to collide. Amore massive star forms from this, expand-ing the stellar cluster and the collisions cease(Bonnell et al., 1998).

Thus, the link between the formation oflow-mass and high-mass stars is not well un-derstood. There exists an Initial Mass Func-tion (IMF) for star formation, which showsthe distribution of star masses for a group-ing of stars. The earliest form of IMF wasby Salpeter which is for masses above 1M�

and is in the form

ξ(m)∆m = ξ0

(m

M�

)−2.35( ∆m

MSun

)(3)

or

ξ(m) ∝(m

M�

)−1.35

(4)

ξ(m)∆m is the number of stars in the massrange m to m + dm, which is proportionalto a mass m−α, where α is a dimensionlessconstant. (In the Salpeter function for exam-ple, α = 2.35) (Salpeter, 1955). The IMFessentially tells us that when the mass of astar forming region increases, the number ofnew stars per unit of mass goes down. TheIMF can be used to estimate the exchange ofmass between stars in a region and their sur-rounding environment (Prialnik, 2009). Asstar formation has an effect on the IMF, it willtherefore have an impact on the interstellarmedium (ISM) around the group of stars. Arelationship for the fractional mass returnedto the ISM is:

η

ζ=

∫Mmax

MLMSm−1.35dm−MWD

∫MSN

MLMSm−2.35dm∫Mmax

Mminm−1.35dm

(5)Where η is the mass returned to the ISM by aphase of star formation, ζ is the mass initially”locked” within the stars and LMS, WD andSN refer to Low-Mass Stars, White Dwarfsand Supernovae respectively (Prialnik, 2009).

1.2 Classification of YSOs

1.2.1 Low-Mass

The evolution of a low-mass YSO (< 8M� isclassed from 0 to III, generally distinguish-able by their Spectral Energy Distributions(SEDs). I shall describe each class and their

5


Figure 1: A diagram highlighting the key features of outflows over disk, envelope and cloudscales (seven orders of magnitude) (Frank et al., 2014, Fig.1)

characteristics below, as mentioned in Ladaand Kylafis (1999)

• Class 0: This stage consists of cloudcores in a phase of early accretion, whichcan show signs of strong outflows. TheSED of these objects typically peak inthe far-infrared and sub-millimeter por-tions of the EM spectrum.

• Class I: This stage happens during theembedded phase of the YSOs life. Theseobjects show a large excess of infraredemission, believed to be from circum-stellar dust. These show very little emis-sion in the optical portion of the EM

spectrum. These objects are where themajority of bipolar outflows exist and isthe main accretion phase (see 1.3).

• Class II: These objects can be visible inthe optical region and infrared, leadingastronomers to have a more detailed un-derstanding about them when comparedto the previous two classes. Class IIsources are seen to be more commonthan Class I, with a ratio of 10:1. Thesecan be described as similar to a ClassicT Tauri Star (CTTS) which are low massstars on the pre-main sequence.

• Class III: These objects show peak emis-

6


sion in visible and infrared for low massstars. Most have ages of more than 5 mil-lion years and are the most evolved ofthese bodies. They are at the stage whereany material surrounding them has beenused for the star or has been ejectedaway. The circumstellar disk is clearedbetween the Class II and III stages.

Nearly all observed Class 0 and Class I ob-jects show signs of outflows. (Lada and Ky-lafis, 1999)

1.2.2 High-Mass

Higher mass stars (> 8M�), are also gener-ally divided into 4 categories. I shall brieflydescribe these phases as per Zinnecker andYorke (2007) and de Villiers et al. (2014) (forOB type stars):

• IR dark clouds: These dark clouds arebelieved to be the earliest stage in thisprocess of star formation, containingcold dense cores. These regions appearto come from turbulence in molecularclouds. These clouds may contain low tointermediate mass protostars in a phaseof accretion, but are hard to detect.

• Hot molecular cores (HMC): Theseregions consist of a large mass ofwarm/dense gas. These can be spot-ted by looking for methanol masers (e.gde Villiers et al. (2014) MMAOs) and arecompact regions of a short life span (¡105 yr). HMCs are heated by an embed-ded protostar and contain complex or-ganic molecules such as methanol.

• Hyper Compact and ultra compact HIIregions: These are small, expanding

pockets of gas. hypercompact HII re-gions are most likely showing photo-evaporating disks and ultracompact HIIregions are mostly likely showing disk-less stars photoionizing

• Compact and classical HII regions:These are regions of ionized gas, some-times from multiple sources. As theyexpand, the associated molecular cloudgets disrupted and astronomers are ableto make observations of the embeddedstars in the near-IR and optical

Zinnecker and Yorke (2007) refers to thefour stages of high-mass formation as com-pression → collapse → accretion → disrup-tion

1.3 Jets and Outflows

One of the early observable star formationprocesses available to astronomers is bipo-lar protostellar outflows. First signs of thesewere discovered with Herbig-Haro (HH) ob-jects in the 1940s (Reipurth and Heathcote,1997). In the 1980s they were found to becollimated jets (Snell et al., 1980) and thesophistication in technology and understand-ing since then has led to much more detaileddiscoveries. One lobe of the jets appear tobe redshifted, while the other appears to beblueshifted. These have been seen to occurin both low and high-mass star formation.Like other star forming processes, outflowsfrom low-mass protostars have been studiedin much more detail and number. Molecu-lar outflows help to understand the mass lossfrom YSOs and as technology has advanced,astronomers have been able to detect muchhigher velocity outflows that are much morecollimated (Wu et al., 2004).

7


There are two theories on the formation ofoutflows; X-wind and Disk-wind. They bothrely on the idea that jets arise from open fieldlines from a magnetic field within a rotat-ing cirumstellar disk (Magnetohydrodynam-ics (MHD) processes). The main differenceis in the geometry of the interaction betweenobject and field. The X-wind model refersto an ’x-point’, where the magnetic field ofthe star connects to the disk. The co-rotationof the disk and star cause winds to collimateinto a jet, which travel along open field lines(Shang et al., 2007). The D-wind model re-lies on winds being launched along the openfield lines as well, but instead refers to be-ing launched from a wide range of disk radii(Dougados et al., 2004).

Outflows appear to play an important partin star formation process. They remove angu-lar momentum from the accretion disk, whichwould help to explain the low spin rate inyoung stars which would spin faster due toaccretion and contraction mechanisms. Thetransfer of angular momentum effects the fur-ther evolution of the star as it cannot continueto accrete material onto itself if the angularmomentum is too high. Matter falls onto thedisk from the surroundings and so the diskmost likely plays a role in the angular mo-mentum problem. Both X-wind and D-windmodels can help with the transport of angu-lar momentum away from the disk by verti-cally transferring it away via the open mag-netic field lines (Frank et al., 2014).

Chrysostomou et al. (2008) studied two H2

jets from Class I YSOs, finding that one ofthem (HH 26) had transported a lower limit of70% of the angular momentum needed to betaken away from the disk in order to continuethe accretion processes. That was only thecontribution from the kinetic angular momen-

tum, so it appears to shows that jets may bethe main source of angular momentum trans-portation for these objects.

Another use of outflows as part of starforming mechanisms is that it serves as away of adding feedback to its parent cloud.As the jets propagate outwards, they causebow-shocks in the cloud, affecting its turbu-lence and structure. This means that jets canhave an affect on the density in regions of thecloud, effectively reducing the Jeans mass andallowing for further collapse (Federrath et al.,2014). As shown in Federrath et al. 2014, af-ter applying a scaled down model of jets tostar formation there was an observable reduc-tion on star formation rate, increase in amountof stars formed and an increase in the aver-age star mass. It has been theorized that col-limated outflows are more effective in termsof feedback on cluster scales instead of wholecloud scales. (Frank et al., 2014)

It is interesting to note that some of the su-permassive black holes within Active Galac-tic Nuclei (AGN) exhibit jets as well. Highvelocity, highly collimated outflows havebeen observed which extend through theirhost galaxies, as well as weak, poorly col-limated jets from other AGN (Meier, 2003).It has been speculated that relativistic jetsand winds come from the proximity of coiledmagnetic fields and matter as the accretiondisk rotates, causing outflows perpendicularto the disk’s axis (Marscher, 2009).

In this investigation, I will be looking atvarious surveys of outflows from differentpublications. My aim is to present a databaseof outflows from low-mass to high-mass in or-der to compare physical properties and eval-uate possible links between their formationprocesses. Wu et al. 2004 presented a studyof a range of stellar masses in the CO emis-

8


sion lines and others have looked into othervarious tracers. I have compiled a databaseof outflows with different molecular speciessuch as SiO , CO, Hα etc.

Different tracers highlight key physicalconditions within the jets. For example, HItraces the momentum transferred to the parentcloud and the total mass transferred by an out-flow. Hα and other atomic lines can be usedto trace shocks (Bally et al., 2007). Thereforeit is useful to assemble these tracers togetherto get a more general picture of the outflows.

2 Tables and Data

2.1 Data collection

As part of my investigation into outflowphysics, I have constructed a database of out-flow sources in the Milky Way galaxy, ob-tained from up to date studies. Where neededparameters haven’t been stated/calculated bythe author(s), I have worked them out myself.Some values are not easily measurable (suchas small scale parameters) without better in-strumentation. However measurements suchas entrainment rate, outflow force and lumi-nosity can be directly measured or easily de-rived and so will be included in the databasewhere present (Frank et al., 2014).

The classification of outflow masses isdone by taking the bolometric luminosities ofthe source objects. 103 L� is taken as thepoint between high mass (> 8M�) and lowmass. This comes from low and intermedi-ate mass objects on the H-R diagram typi-cally showing bolometric luminosities of un-der 103 L� (Wu et al., 2004)

See Appendix A for the full data-set.

2.1.1 Table 3: Basic Parameters

Table 3 shows the basic parameters of the out-flow source, including co-ordinates and givensource names.

1. Col. 1 gives the source name

2. Cols. 2 and 3 give the right ascensionand declination (using the J2000 system)

3. Cols. 3 and 4 gives galactic co-ordinateslongitude (l◦) and latitude (b◦)

4. Col. 5 gives a numbered reference toeach dataset shown (see table 1)

Styles of source name varies from author toauthor, with some authors listing a variety oftypes of source name. For example de Villierset al. (2014) uses just galactic source names(G 23.010 − 0.411) while Wu et al. (2004)uses everything from galactic source namesto T Tau and names like M8E. This makes itdifficult to order the database by name. Simi-larly, some authors have listed positions of theoutflows/clumps in terms of right ascensionand declination, while others have used galac-tic co-ordinates. In order to unify this varia-tion, I have enlisted the help of a python 2.6program named ’PyEphem’ 1, which special-izes in astronomical calculations such as con-verting between these two co-ordinate types.

2.1.2 Table 4: Physical parameters

Table 4 shows more in-depth physical param-eters including,

1. Col. 1 gives the source name

2. Col. 2 gives the outflow’s associatedsource mass (Menv/M�)

1see http://rhodesmill.org/pyephem/(Rhodes, 2015)

9

http://rhodesmill.org/pyephem/


3. Col. 4 gives the mass-loss rate(Mout/M� yr−1)

4. Col. 5 gives the outflow mechanical lu-minosity (Lm/L�)

5. Col. 6 gives the outflow me-chanical force/momentum flux(FCO/M� kms−1 yr)

6. Col. 7 gives the dynamical time of theoutflow (t/yr)

7. Col. 8 gives a numbered reference toeach dataset shown (see table 2)

de Villiers et al. (2014) showed how towork out the outflow mechanical force (Fm)(sometimes denoted by p) and mechanicalluminosity(Lm):

Fm =p

t(6)

Lm =E

t(7)

Where p is the outflow momentum and E isthe energy. These can further be shown us-ing non-relativistic Newtonian definitions formomentum and energy:

Mb ×∆Vb +Mr ×∆Vr (8)

E =1

2Mb ×∆vb

2 +1

2Mr ×∆vr

2 (9)

essentially splitting the outflow into its redand blue lobe masses and velocities. (r andb in the equations). Mechanical force is animportant factor when studying outflows. Itprovides a look at the ’strength’ of the outflowand can be used to study its launching mech-anisms. The outflow mass rate can be workedout using

Mout =Mout

t(10)

where t is the dynamical timescale of the out-flow. (Beuther et al., 2002)

2.2 Discussion of sources used

In my investigation, one of the main goals wasto build up a picture of low-mass to high-massoutflows from existing research in order to ob-serve trends in their mechanisms. This wouldhelp to evaluate whether the two scales showsimilarities in their operations or if they workunder two different situations entirely. I willdiscuss the papers I have used below, high-lighting any key differences in their data andany important points to take into account. Iwill compare my results with findings fromthese papers in my later analysis sections.

Observing molecular outflows is not aneasy task, and advances in resolution capa-bilities of viewing instruments have helped toimprove observations, allowing astronomersto map the outflows along adjacent view-ing fields. This helps to achieve a look atthe structure of gas surrounding a protostar,which in turn can help develop a picture of themorphology of outflows. It is for that reasonthat I will provide information on the instru-mentation used and any specific notes aboutthe author’s observations when discussing pa-pers I have used in this chapter.

2.2.1 Low to Intermediate-Mass Sources

Hatchell et al. (2007) observed outflows fromlow-mass sources in the Perseus molecularcloud. The authors made observations using12CO as a tracer as it is sensitive to warmoutflows. They have presented a sample of54 outflow sources, of which 24 have definiteoutflows and the rest either not detected orwith confused outflows. All but four of the

10


outflows confirm protostellar sources whencompared to Spitzer IR detections. As this isthe case, I have only used definite protostellaroutflows when using the data from this studyto avoid inaccuracies.

Bontemps et al. (1996) is a paper used com-monly when referring to outflows from low-mass sources. Bontemps presented a study of45 YSOs, consisting of 36 Class I YSOs and 9Class 0s. Observations were made in CO (2-1) with the National Radio Astronomy Obser-vatory (NRAO) 12m telescope at Kitt Peak.From the data in this paper I could get val-ues for momentum flux, source mass, outflowmass and source bolometric luminosity.

Takahashi et al. (2008) Looked at more in-termediate mass outflow sources, focusing onthe Orion Molecular Cloud 2 and 3 region.With the Atacama Sub-millimeter TelescopeExperiment telescope, they used 12CO (3-2)as a tracer, observing 14 molecular outflows,of which seven were newly discovered.

2.2.2 High-Mass Sources

de Villiers et al. (2014) studied outflowsfrom higher mass objects, using 13CO and18CO emissions. Methanol (CH3OH) 6.7GHzmasers were used as signposts for the star for-mation, and the authors used the masers po-sitions to survey for the outflows, labellingthem as Methanol Maser Associated Outflows(MMAOs). 13CO is a useful tracer for observ-ing high-velocity gas, which helps to studythe structure and kinematics of the outflows,while 18CO looks at the column density, andits peak generally shows the position of theYSO’s core. They observed a large offsetfrom the maser position when compared withthe MMAO peak emissions. 70 sources wereobserved overall, with only 54 meeting qual-ity criteria (not too low of a signal to noise ra-tio, not showing unreliable temperatures etc.)The biggest uncertainty in this paper comesfrom θ, which is the angle of of the outflow’saxis with respect to line of sight. Inclinationsof the outflow to the plane of the sky cause the

(a) Cores in 05358+3543 (b) Outflow in 05358+3543

Figure 2: Side by side view of core and outflow diagrams for the same region (Beuther et al.,2002, Fig.1)

11


length of the outflow to be reduced. de Vil-liers et al. (2014) stated that most authors ap-ply a mean inclination angle of 57.3◦, as anoutflow is assumed to have random inclina-tion and uniform distribution to the line ofsight. The author derived the clump massesusing 870 µm dust flux measurements. Theyalso listed clump masses derived from C18Omaps but these showed a significant differ-ence compared to the submm mass calcula-tions (around a factor of 5 smaller). Thestated reason for this is most likely from thetwo measurements tracing different areas inthe clump. Uncertainties such as C18O abun-dance could play a role in this, so the authorchose to use the 870 µm flux measurementsto calculate clump masses. I have taken thisassumption when using their data in my ta-bles and analysis. When plotting the mechan-ical mass Fm for their plots, the author hasapplied a correction factor of 2.9 (which cor-rosponds to the mean inclination angle men-tioned previously) which is shown as FCOin the data. Where the authors have ob-served monopolar targets, they have doubledthe mass-dependent parameters such as out-flow mass and mechanical force. This is dueto the loss of a single lobe’s mass.

In Beuther et al. (2002), the sources of theoutflows used for calculating other parame-ters were not clear. Looking at their 2002a pa-per, the authors listed a large number of stel-lar clumps with multiple cores shown in each.On top of this, there were distance ambigu-ities when calculating the mass of the indi-vidual cores (the author plotted these as nearmass and far mass values). In order to use thisdata in my study, I took on the assumptionthat in most cases, the largest core closest tothe outflow (those shown in the 2002b paper)would be the most likely object in causing it.

Looking at the figures below from both the2002a and the 2002b paper, which show thecores and the outflows respectively, I notedwhich were most likely to be the cause andthen used those to make near and far massplots. From there I could observe which wasmost likely to be a correct fit, with help fromalready existing literature using the same data(e.g (de Villiers et al., 2014) and (Beutheret al., 2002)). In an erratum (Beuther et al.,2005), the authors stated that their derivedclump masses and column densities should bea factor a of 2 lower due to their approxima-tion of the grain emissivity needing to be 2times higher than they originally predicted. Ihave corrected for this when using the data inmy investigation.

Lopez-Sepulcre et al. (2011) observed ahigh mass sample consisting of 57 molecu-lar clumps. The sample used was split intotwo groups, one representing infrared darkclumps, which contained 20 sources and 37infrared loud clumps. These two groups markdifferent star formation stages with IR darkshowing less evolved phases and IR loudshowing more evolved phases. The authorshave applied criteria to the sample set, con-sisting of: an inclination angle δ > −15◦,clump mass Mclump > 100M� (to ensureonly high-mass regions are studied) and dis-tance d < 4.5kpc (in order to limit a spreadof distances). These criteria were met by allsources apart from 5 IR dark clumps whichwent over the distance limit. Observationswere made in SiO(2-1) and SiO(3-2) lineswith the IRAM 30m telescope.

Sanchez-Monge et al. (2013) looked at 14regions of high-mass star formation with theIRAM 30m telescope using SiO(2-1), SiO(5-4) and HCO+(1-0) lines as tracers for the out-flow. This study used a subset of the Lopez-

12


Sepulcre et al. (2011) sample, aiming to de-rive outflow properties of the SiO outflowsand and show how SiO levels vary with time.The reason that HCO+ was used for mappingis that a tracer for the extended parts of theoutflow. The authors mention that there isan assumed 10% uncertainty on the flux mea-surements from the three emission lines anda 20% uncertainty on the distance estimates.This leads to an expected uncertainty of 50%on the derived outflow parameters that theyhave listed. The authors have compared me-dian values for Mout, FCO and LM with low-mass outflow studies and of studies with ob-jects of similar luminosities ((Wu et al., 2004)(Beuther et al., 2002). These comparisonshelped to confirm that the observed outflowsin their paper are from high-mass star forma-tion.

3 Analysis and Discussion

In this chapter I will be discussing trends andfindings by myself and the literature used inthis review. In particular I will be looking fora ”bigger picture” of outflow physics, essen-tially looking for connections between low-mass star formation and high-mass. I will firstdiscuss the findings from some of the papersI have used for my database and then presentmy own collation of their data, with similaranalysis.

3.1 Low to Intermediate-Mass YSOs

3.1.1 Parameters AgainstClump/Envelope Mass

Takahashi et al. (2008) found that therewas a positive correlation between FCO andMClump.

Presented in Bontemps et al. (1996) is aplot of FCO againstMenv which shows a pro-portional relationship between the momen-tum flux and envelope mass, implying thatas a Class 0 protostar evolves into a Class 1,there is a decrease in outflow strength. Thiscorrelates with their differences in envelopemass between the two classes, with Class Ihaving lower values.

Duarte-Cabral et al. (2013) plotted datafrom Bontemps et al. (1996) along with their 9outflow sources. In their plot of FCO againstMenv, they found that there appears to be a re-lationship between the two, which is extendedover 2.5 orders of magnitude and includesClass 0 and Class 1 protostars. They havenoted that as accretion rateMacc decreaseswith Menv and that FCO should trace accre-tion rates, this relationship makes sense in ex-tending to the higher mass end.

3.1.2 Parameters Against Bolometric Lu-minosity

Bontemps et al. (1996) plotted FCO againstLbol for Class 0 and Class I separately. Theyfound that there was a correlation betweenthe two, even though the sample they haveshown contains a small range of bolomet-ric luminosities. They noted that the Class0 sources show stronger outflows than theirClass I counterparts of similar luminosities,suggesting that they have more efficient driv-ing mechanisms

Hatchell et al. (2007) showed a positivecorrelation for FCO and Lbol but with a scat-ter in their results. They found that betweenClass I and Class 0 sources there is not asignificant difference generally in momentumflux (contrasting with Bontemps et al. (1996)but it is noted that there may have been con-

13


fusion between a few Class I and Class 0sources, leading to some Class 1 sources hav-ing high FCO values.

Takahashi et al. (2008) found a positivecorellation between FCO and Lbol. Theynoted that FCO and Lbol are good indicatorsof YSO mass. Their justification of why Lbolis a good indicator is that for low to intermedi-ate mass YSOs Lbol is most likely dominatedby accretion luminosity, shown by:

Lacc = GM∗Macc/R∗ (11)

However for some high-mass stars they arestill accreting when they have reached themain-sequence, leading to Lbol not being anaccurate identifier of stellar mass. FCO is be-lieved to be a good identifier of YSO massas it most likely has a linear relationship withaccretion rate. This is due to the probabilityof an outflow’s energy being from the gravi-tational energy from accretion onto the proto-star (Bontemps et al., 1996) .

3.2 High-Mass YSOs

3.2.1 Parameters AgainstClump/Envelope Mass

de Villiers et al. (2014) took data fortheir Methanol Maser Associated Outflows(MMAOs) associated clump masses and theclump masses of Bontemps et al. 1996 andassociated them with their respective outflowmasses. DeVilliers presented a figure (us-ing log scales) showing the relationship be-tween clump masses (Mclump/M�) and out-flow mass (Mout/M�) for the low-mass sam-ples and their observed MMAOs. When plot-ting the mass-loss rate against clump mass,de Villiers et al. (2014) showed a positive cor-relation, extending it to the low-mass regime.

Their results (with uncertainties included)agree with findings by Sanchez-Monge et al.(2013) and Lopez-Sepulcre et al. (2009) butshow higher values for Mout and Mout thanBeuther et al. (2002) for similar objects.

They also found that their plot of FCOagainst Mclump showed a similar to trend tothat of the low-mass sample they used in theirforce plot (Bontemps et al., 1996). These re-sults point towards the idea that high-massoutflow physics is a scaled up version of thelow-mass physics.

Lopez-Sepulcre et al. (2009) used the sam-ple from Beuther et al. (2002) in their plots,adjusting for the erratum posted after the ini-tial paper (Beuther et al., 2005). They plot-ted outflow mass (Mout/M�) and mechani-cal force (Fout) againstMclump (derived fromC18O(2-1) emission), as well as plotting thesame but with the masses derived from sub-millimeter surveys (Mdust) in order to matchup with the data from Beuther et al. (2002)(which also uses (Mdust)). They have notedthat there is a difference of around a factor of5 between the clump and dust masses. This ismost likely due to the different tracers used,tracing different properties of the clumps.

3.2.2 Parameters Against DynamicalTime

de Villiers et al. (2014) also showed a logrelationship for outflow masses (Mout/M�)against dynamical time (t/yr). From thisthere does not appear to be any significantcorrelation, with a large spread of data pointsthroughout the figure. The authors note thattheir dynamical timescales might be too smallto show any such trends such as outflow massincreases. The reason this is a useful relation-ship to study for is that it could show how an

14


outflow evolves with time, showing changeswith mass in different stages of the outflows.

3.3 Unifying Outflow Physics

I will now discuss the trends seen from collat-ing the work of the literature mentioned in thisreview, scaling their findings to show a largerspectrum of outflow physics. See AppendixA for the full data-set. The colour keys on theplots are kept the same throughout.

Figure 3 presents a plot of outflow massesagainst clump mass. A positive relationshipcan be seen from low mass to high-mass, withsome scatter in the lower-mass end.

log(Mout) = −1 + 0.8 log(MClump)

One would expect outflow mass to increasewith mass of the source, as a higher mass ac-creting protostar would have higher gravita-tional potential and more material. Thus, ahigher mass YSO would have more powerfuland massive outflows.

Figure 4 presents a plot of mechanical lu-minosities Lm against clump mass. I havebeen unable to find much data for Lm fromlow-mass and intermediate sources, so vander Marel et al. (2013) is the only low-massplot here. Regardless, within the scatter of thedata, there appears to be a positive trend herebut more data would be needed in the inter-mediate mass region in order for it to be morereliable. The power law I have fitted is shownby

log(lm) = −2 + 1 log(MClump)

Figure 5 presents a plot of outflow massesagainst dynamical time. In this case it wasn’t

possible to obtain the dynamical time for allthe sources I have studied, so the majorityof the points are in the high-mass end ofthe scale (typically higher mass sources). Asnoted by de Villiers et al. (2014), there is no-table scatter in the data points (for individualpapers). However, when plotting with low tointermediate outflow masses, there appears tobe a positive trend between outflow mass anddynamical timescale, suggesting that higher-mass outflows (and by reasoning in figure 3,clump mass) typically have a longer dynam-ical timescale than their lower-mass counter-parts. The power law I have fitted to my datais shown by

log(Mout) = −15 + 3.3 log(t)

Figure 6 presents a plot of mechanicalforce/momentum flux (FCO/M� km s−1 yr)of the outflows against the associated sourcemass (MClump/M�) this is the most detailedplot in my study as nearly all papers I’ve usedhave given data for FCO or Fm, meaning Icould have multiple sources from all areas ofthe YSO mass spectrum. The plot shows apositive correlation extended over the YSOmass scale, with a possible outlier to the rela-tionship (Hatchell et al., 2007). The data fromHatchell et al. (2007) doesn’t seem to fit withthe other two low-mass studies in my investi-gations. I discovered through private commu-nication that this may be due to to errors withdistance and optical depth (Hatchell, 2015).Another paper, (Curtis et al., 2010) used 65cores from Hatchell, possibly correcting forthe distance or optical depth problems. Un-fortunately it was not possible to obtain thedata from this paper, so instead I have shownthe line of best fit from Curtis’s data for theregion where the data Hatchell et al. (2007)

15


lies on the plot, shown by

log(FCO) = 0.85− 5.4 log(Menv)

The data from Hatchell et al. (2007) isshown by the transparent green triangles onFigure 6. With the power law from Curtiset al. (2010) the Hatchell data appears to bewithin the region of my relationship I haveoverlaid on the plot. The relationship I havefitted to the rest of the data is given by

log(FCO) = −4.5 + 0.8 log(MClump)

This tends to suggest a linear relationshipbetween momentum flux and clump mass. Asthe data covers low to intermediate to high-mass, it seems to suggest that generally out-flow mechanisms are similar for these differ-ent YSOs.

Figure 7 presents a plot of outflow mass-loss rate (Mout/M� yr−1) against sourcemass (MClump/M�). From the plot, it ap-pears that the mass-loss rate increases withsource mass as you would expect from highermass objects (assuming that the higher theclump mass, the higher the outflow mass see3). Again, with this number of data pointsit appears to follow a linear trend along themass-scale shown by

log(Mout) = −6 + 0.9 log(Mclump)

16


Figure 3: A log plot of outflow masses against associated clump masses

Figure 4: A log plot of observed mechanical luminosities against associated clump masses

17


Figure 5: A log plot of outflow masses against outflow dynamical timescale

Figure 6: A log plot of outflow momentum flux against associated clump masses

18


Figure 7: A log plot of outflow mass-loss rate against associated clump mass

4 Summary and Conclusion

In conclusion, I have shown a general pictureof outflow physics for YSOs from low-massto the high-mass end from a range of sources.Given more time, I would liked to have ob-tained more data-sets from various other pa-pers, to give a detailed look at the whole scale.This would have enabled me to show more ac-curate relationships, especially when there isa limited amount of low-mass data to use andthere is scatter in data from certain papers.With more time, I would have liked to alsohave looked at other parameters to do withoutflows, such as comparing the outflow mo-mentum flux to the bolometric luminosity ofthe source, seeing if there is a relationship be-tween the two as it should be similar to myplot of momentum flux against clump mass

(due to higher mass protostars being more lu-minous).

Based on the outflow relationships I haveshown, they do seem to suggest that high-mass star formation could be a scaled up ver-sion of low mass star formation but more datais needed in the low to intermediate mass re-gions in order to be confident in such a the-ory. However, from the sources I have beenable to get for low-mass YSOs, the relation-ships do seem to fit with the many sources forhigh-mass YSOs.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Dr Antonio Chrysos-tomou for his continuous guidance and sup-port during my investigation, as well as for histechnical advice on using LATEX and Vuesz.

19


References

Adams, F. C. and Shu, F. H.: 2007, apj 671, 497

Bally, J., Reipurth, B., and Davis, C. J.: 2007, Protostars and Planets V pp 215–230

Beuther, H., Churchwell, E. B., McKee, C. F., and Tan, J. C.: 2006, p. 16

Beuther, H., Schilke, P., Gueth, F., McCaughrean, M., Andersen, M., Sridharan, T. K., andMenten, K. M.: 2002, aap 387, 931

Beuther, H., Schilke, P., Menten, K. M., Motte, F., Sridharan, T. K., and Wyrowski, F.: 2005,apj 633, 535

Bonnell, I. A., Bate, M. R., and Zinnecker, H.: 1998, mnras 298, 93

Bonnell, I. A., Larson, R. B., and Zinnecker, H.: 2006, p. 16

Bontemps, S., Andre, P., Terebey, S., and Cabrit, S.: 1996, aap 311, 858

Boss, A. P.: 2009, apj 697, 1940

Carroll, B. and Ostlie, D.: 2007, An Introduction to Modern Astrophysics, Pearson Addison-Wesley

Chrysostomou, A., Bacciotti, F., Nisini, B., Ray, T. P., Eisloffel, J., Davis, C. J., and Takami,M.: 2008, aap 482, 575

Curtis, E. I., Richer, J. S., Swift, J. J., and Williams, J. P.: 2010, 408, 1516

de Villiers, H. M., Chrysostomou, A., Thompson, M. A., Ellingsen, S. P., Urquhart, J. S.,Breen, S. L., Burton, M. G., Csengeri, T., and Ward-Thompson, D.: 2014, Mon. Not. R.Astron. Soc. 444(1), 566

Dougados, C., Cabrit, S., Ferreira, J., Pesenti, N., Garcia, P., and O’Brien, D.: 2004, apss292, 643

Duarte-Cabral, A., Bontemps, S., Motte, F., Hennemann, M., Schneider, N., and Andre, P.:2013, 558, A125

Elmegreen, B. G.: 2011, in C. Charbonnel and T. Montmerle (eds.), EAS Publications Series,Vol. 51 of EAS Publications Series, pp 45–58

Federrath, C., Schron, M., Banerjee, R., and Klessen, R. S.: 2014, apj 790, 128

Frank, A., Ray, T. P., Cabrit, S., Hartigan, P., Arce, H. G., Bacciotti, F., Bally, J., Benisty, M.,Eisloffel, J., Gudel, M., Lebedev, S., Nisini, B., and Raga, A.: 2014

20


Hatchell, J.: 2015, Private communication

Hatchell, J., Fuller, G. A., and Richer, J. S.: 2007, aap 472, 187

Kuiper, R., Klahr, H., Beuther, H., and Henning, T.: 2010, apj 722, 1556

Lada, C. and Kylafis, N.: 1999, The Origin of Stars and Planetary Systems, NATO scienceseries: Mathematical and physical sciences, Springer Netherlands

Li, Z.-Y., Banerjee, R., Pudritz, R. E., Jø rgensen, J. K., Shang, H., Krasnopolsky, R., andMaury, A.: 2014

Lopez-Sepulcre, A., Cesaroni, R., and Walmsley, C. M.: 2010, 517, A66

Lopez-Sepulcre, A., Codella, C., Cesaroni, R., Marcelino, N., and Walmsley, C. M.: 2009,Astron. Astrophys. 499(3), 811

Lopez-Sepulcre, A., Walmsley, C. M., Cesaroni, R., Codella, C., Schuller, F., Bronfman, L.,Carey, S. J., Menten, K. M., Molinari, S., and Noriega-Crespo, A.: 2011, aap 526, L2

Marscher, A. P.: 2009, ArXiv e-prints

Meier, D. L.: 2003, nar 47, 667

Palla, F. and Stahler, S. W.: 1993, apj 418, 414

Prialnik, D.: 2009, An Introduction to the Theory of Stellar Structure and Evolution, Cam-bridge University Press

Reipurth, B. and Heathcote, S.: 1997, in B. Reipurth and C. Bertout (eds.), Herbig-HaroFlows and the Birth of Stars, Vol. 182 of IAU Symposium, pp 3–18

Rhodes, B. C.: 2015, PyEphem Home Page, [Online; accessed 2-March-2015]

Salpeter, E. E.: 1955, Astrophys. J. 121, 161

Sanchez-Monge, A., Lopez-Sepulcre, A., Cesaroni, R., Walmsley, C. M., Codella, C., Beltran,M. T., Pestalozzi, M., and Molinari, S.: 2013, Astron. Astrophys. 557, A94

Shang, H., Li, Z.-Y., and Hirano, N.: 2007, Protostars and Planets V pp 261–276

Snell, R. L., Loren, R. B., and Plambeck, R. L.: 1980, apjl 239, L17

Takahashi, S., Saito, M., Ohashi, N., Kusakabe, N., Takakuwa, S., Shimajiri, Y., Tamura, M.,and Kawabe, R.: 2008, apj 688, 344

Tan, J. C., Beltran, M. T., Caselli, P., Fontani, F., Fuente, A., Krumholz, M. R., McKee, C. F.,and Stolte, A.: 2014, Protostars and Planets VI pp 149–172

21


van der Marel, N., Kristensen, L. E., Visser, R., Mottram, J. C., Yıldız, U. A., and vanDishoeck, E. F.: 2013, 556, A76

Wu, Y., Wei, Y., Zhao, M., Shi, Y., Yu, W., Qin, S., and Huang, M.: 2004, Astron. Astrophys.426(2), 503

Zinnecker, H. and Yorke, H. W.: 2007, 45, 481

22


A First Appendix

Table 1: Reference numbers for data presented in Table 3

Reference number Paper

1 de Villiers et al. (2014)2 Lopez-Sepulcre et al. (2010)3 Lopez-Sepulcre et al. (2009)4 Beuther et al. (2002)5 Takahashi et al. (2008)6 Hatchell et al. (2007)7 Sanchez-Monge et al. (2013)8 Duarte-Cabral et al. (2013)9 van der Marel et al. (2013)

Table 2: Reference numbers for data presented in Table 4

Reference number Paper

1 de Villiers et al. (2014)2 Lopez-Sepulcre et al. (2010)3 Lopez-Sepulcre et al. (2009)4 Beuther et al. (2002)5 Takahashi et al. (2008)6 Hatchell et al. (2007)7 Sanchez-Monge et al. (2013)8 Duarte-Cabral et al. (2013)9 Bontemps et al. (1996)

10 van der Marel et al. (2013)

23


Table 3: Coordinates of outflow sources in equatorial (J2000) and galactic coordinates.

Source Ra (J2000) (h:m:s) Dec (J2000) (deg:m:s) l(◦) b(◦) Ref

G 20.081-0.135 18 28 10.2 -11 28 47 20.081 -0.135 1G 21.882+0.013 18 31 2.5 -9 49 26 21.875 0.008 1G 22.038+0.222 18 30 34.7 -9 34 41 22.04 0.223 1G 22.356+0.066 18 31 43.7 -9 22 11 22.356 0.068 1G 22.435-0.169 18 31 43.7 -9 24 33 22.435 -0.169 1G 23.003+0.124 18 32 43.7 -8 46 12 23.002 0.126 1G 23.010-0.411 18 34 40.0 -9 0 43 23.008 -0.41 1G 23.206-0.378 18 34 55.5 -8 49 8 23.209 -0.378 1G 23.365-0.291 18 34 54.1 -8 38 28 23.364 -0.291 1G 23.437-0.184 18 34 38.9 -8 31 39 23.436 -0.183 1G 23.484+0.097 18 33 43.6 -8 21 23 23.483 0.098 1G 23.706-0.198 18 35 12.1 -8 17 39 23.706 -0.197 1G 24.329+0.144 18 35 8.1 -7 34 58 24.33 0.145 1G 24.493-0.039 18 36 5.8 -7 31 22 24.493 -0.039 1G 24.790+0.083A 18 36 12.6 -7 12 11 24.79 0.083 1G 24.850+0.087 18 36 19.2 -7 8 46 24.853 0.085 1G 25.650+1.050 18 34 20.5 -5 59 42 25.649 1.051 1G 25.710+0.044 18 38 2.7 -6 23 33 25.719 0.051 1G 25.826-0.178 18 39 3.6 -6 24 17 25.824 -0.179 1G 28.148-0.004 18 42 42.6 -4 15 30 28.148 -0.004 1G 28.201-0.049 18 42 58.1 -4 13 55 28.201 -0.049 1G 28.282-0.359 18 44 15.4 -4 17 53 28.289 -0.365 1G 28.305-0.387 18 44 22.1 -4 17 31 28.307 -0.387 1G 28.321-0.011 18 43 3.2 -4 6 28 28.321 -0.011 1G 28.608+0.018 18 43 28.5 -3 50 21 28.608 0.018 1G 28.832-0.253 18 44 51.1 -3 45 50 28.832 -0.253 1G 29.603-0.625 18 47 33.5 -3 14 49 29.6 -0.618 1G 29.865-0.043 18 45 59.8 -2 45 6 29.863 -0.045 1G 29.956-0.016A 18 46 4.0 -2 39 22 29.956 -0.017 1G 29.956-0.016B 18 46 4.0 -2 39 22 29.962 -0.008 1G 29.979-0.047 18 46 13.2 -2 38 59 29.979 -0.048 1G 30.317+0.070 18 46 25.0 -2 17 42 30.317 0.07 1G 30.370+0.482A 18 45 2.3 -2 3 32 30.37 0.484 1G 30.400-0.296 18 47 52.6 -2 23 8 30.403 -0.296 1G 30.419-0.232 18 47 41.0 -2 20 30 30.42 -0.233 1G 30.424+0.466 18 45 12.5 -2 1 12 30.424 0.464 1G 30.704-0.068 18 47 36.4 -2 0 57 30.701 -0.067 1G 30.781+0.231 18 46 41.3 -1 48 35 30.78 0.231 1G 30.788+0.204 18 46 47.9 -1 48 49 30.789 0.205 1G 30.819+0.273 18 46 36.5 -1 45 24 30.818 0.273 1G 30.898+0.162 18 47 8.9 -1 44 5 30.899 0.163 1G 30.973+0.562(1) 18 45 51.9 -1 29 18 30.972 0.561 1G 30.973+0.562(2) — — — — 1G 30.980+0.216 18 47 6.3 -1 38 22 30.979 0.216 1G 31.061+0.094(1) 18 47 41.7 -1 37 26 31.06 0.092 1G 31.061+0.094(2) — — — — 1G 31.076+0.457(1) 18 46 24.1 -1 25 49 31.085 0.468 1G 31.076+0.457(2) — — — — 1G 31.122+0.063 18 47 54.9 -1 34 49 31.124 0.063 1G 31.182-0.148A 18 48 46.3 -1 37 30 31.182 -0.148 1G 31.282+0.062 18 48 12.1 -1 26 26 31.281 0.063 1G 31.412+0.307 18 47 34.5 -1 12 47 31.412 0.306 1G 31.594-0.192(1) 18 49 41.0 -1 16 47 31.593 -0.193 1

24


Table 3 continued.


G 32.744-0.075 18 51 22.2 -0 12 0 32.746 -0.076 1G 33.317-0.360(1) 18 53 25.3 0 10 43 33.317 -0.36 1G 33.317-0.360(2) — — — — 1G 33.634-0.021 18 52 49.9 0 37 38 33.649 -0.024 105358+3543 00 39 12 35 45 52.0 173.4796126 2.443204641 2G213.61-12.6 00 07 49 -06 22 40.6 -146.2970234 -12.59072346 2G189.78+0.34 00 08 35 20 39 04.3 189.777715 0.343605384 2G192.580.04 00 12 53 18 00 35.0 192.5808441 -0.041978877 2G192.600.05 00 12 54 17 59 23.0 192.6002937 -0.048095939 218151-12082 00 17 50 -12 07 55.0 18.31829829 1.793335624 218151-12081 00 17 58 -12 07 27.0 18.34058505 1.76830885 2G18.180.30 00 25 07 -13 14 23.0 18.1761941 -0.295300385 2182231243 00 25 11 -12 42 26.8 18.65439542 -0.060972763 2182281312 00 25 42 -13 10 18.1 18.30265116 -0.389078914 2G19.27+0.1M2 00 25 53 -12 04 48.0 19.28905363 0.080835624 2G19.27+0.1M1 00 25 58 -12 03 59.0 19.31059778 0.06916718 2182361205 00 26 25 -12 03 51.4 19.36377207 -0.02716673 2182641152 00 29 14 -11 50 21.3 19.88337546 -0.532382478 2G23.60+0.0M1 00 34 12 -08 19 06.0 23.57053761 0.011745114 2183160602 00 34 21 -05 59 30.4 25.65080882 1.054299742 2G23.60+0.0M2 00 34 21 -08 18 07.0 23.60218195 -0.013634128 2G24.08+0.0M2 00 34 51 -07 45 32.0 24.14120677 0.126658239 2G24.33+0.1M1a 00 35 08 -07 35 04.0 24.32838295 0.144660442 2G24.60+0.1M2 00 35 36 -07 18 09.0 24.63193554 0.171713199 2G24.60+0.1M1 00 38 10 -07 02 34.0 25.15514091 -0.274414343 2G25.040.2M1 00 38 14 -07 03 12.0 25.1533518 -0.293954419 2G25.040.2M4 00 53 18 01 25 23.0 34.41066815 0.234650189 2G34.43+0.2M1 00 53 20 01 28 23.0 34.4589659 0.250037504 218507+0121 00 53 20 01 24 37.1 34.40312011 0.221421717 218517+0437 00 54 14 04 41 40.0 37.42902678 1.518505774 2G38.950.5M1 00 04 07 05 08 48.0 38.95628866 -0.464539487 219035+0641 00 06 02 06 46 43.0 40.62492402 -0.13882397 219095+0930 00 11 54 09 35 52.0 43.79582907 -0.127070047 220216+4107 00 23 24 41 17 38.0 79.1272086 2.27763552 222134+5834 00 15 09 58 49 06.0 103.874894 1.854873982 223033+5951 00 05 26 60 08 06.0 110.091914 -0.066814191 223139+5939 00 16 11 59 55 30.8 111.2571492 -0.769682721 223151+5912 00 17 21 59 28 49.0 111.2355827 -1.237828214 2G10.47+0.03 18 08 38.22 -19 51 49.7 10.47239417 0.027293384 3G10.62 -0.38 18 10 28.70 -19 55 49.7 10.6234687 -0.383782655 3G16.59 -0.06 18 21 09.16 -14 31 48.8 16.58523596 -0.050867538 3G19.61 -0.23 18 27 38.15 -11 56 38.5 19.60902328 -0.234992944 3G23.44 -0.18 18 34 39.25 -08 31 38.8 23.43669122 -0.18428486 3G28.87+0.06 18 43 46.24 -03 35 30.4 28.86179022 0.065553458 3G29.96 -0.02 18 46 03.96 -02 39 21.5 29.95597912 -0.016802791 3G35.20 -0.74 18 58 12.98 01 40 37.6 35.19736187 -0.742704557 3G43.89 -0.78 19 14 26.16 09 22 34.0 43.88936454 -0.783898388 3G48.61+0.02 19 20 31.19 13 55 24.9 48.60609192 0.022949749 3G75.78+0.34 20 21 44.10 37 26 39.5 75.7826527 0.34280095 305358+3543 05 39 10.4 35 45 19 173.4845035 2.43374861 4181511208 18 17 57.1 -12 07 22 18.34007322 1.772195947 4181821433 18 21 07.9 -14 31 53 16.58181391 -0.04693332 4182641152 18 29 14.3 -11 50 26 19.88278652 -0.534071969 4183450641 18 37 16.8 -06 38 32 25.40995724 0.104996004 4184700044 18 49 36.7 -00 41 05 33.33316408 0.718537136 418566+0408 18 59 09.9 04 12 14 37.55332975 0.200885245 419012+0536 19 03 45.1 05 40 40 39.38662829 -0.140278951 419035+0641 19 06 01.1 06 46 35 40.62123925 -0.136537605 419217+1651 19 23 58.8 16 57 37 51.67738233 0.71882699 419266+1745 19 28 54.0 17 51 56 53.03195819 0.117047667 419410+2336 19 43 11.4 23 44 06 59.78374423 0.064494425 419411+2306 19 43 18.1 23 13 59 59.361127 -0.207533318 420216+4107 20 23 23.8 41 17 40 79.12730579 2.278466919 420293+3952 20 31 10.7 40 03 10 78.97522149 0.356157468 422134+5834 22 15 09.1 58 49 09 103.8755406 1.855442611 422570+5912 22 59 06.5 59 28 28 109.098237 -0.346116476 423033+5951 23 05 25.7 60 08 08 110.0934675 -0.066881159 423139+5939 23 16 09.3 59 55 23 111.2530575 -0.770428706 423151+5912 23 17 21.0 59 28 49 111.2355827 -1.237828214 4

25


Table 3 continued.


SIMBA a 05 35 30.2 -04 58 48.0 208.6512572 -19.14753471 5MMS 2 05 35 18.3 -05 00 34.8 208.6554855 -19.20501542 5MMS 5 05 35 22.4 -05 01 14.1 208.673968 -19.19481127 5MMS 7 05 35 26.4 -05 03 53.4 208.7236977 -19.20010747 5MMS 9 05 35 26.0 -05 05 42.4 208.7514711 -19.2153268 5FIR 2 05 35 24.3 -05 08 33.3 208.7928887 -19.24314838 5FIR 3 05 35 27.5 -05 09 32.5 208.8147904 -19.2387695 5VLA 13 05 35 24.8 -05 10 29.5 208.8243579 -19.25593457 5FIR 6 b 05 35 23.4 -05 12 03.2 208.8461448 -19.27291091 5FIR 6 c 05 35 21.5 -05 13 15.1 208.8612212 -19.28898983 5b1-c 00 33 18 00 09 33 159.18373 -20.08935451 6b1-bS 00 33 21 31 07.30.7 159.2165345 -20.10854859 6b1-d 00 33 16 00 06 54 159.2078844 -20.12771119 6IRAS 03301+3057 00 33 16 00 07 51 159.1981121 -20.11478807 6B1 SMM11 00 33 27 00 07 10 159.2379486 -20.10010777 6HH211 00 43 57 00 00 50 160.4836506 -18.00180909 6IC 348 MMS 00 43 57 00 03 05 160.4595908 -17.97210233 6L1448 NW 00 25 36 00 45 30 158.0397722 -21.40671874 6L1448 N A/B 00 25 36 00 45 15 158.042438 -21.41006562 6L1448 C 00 25 39 00 44 04 158.0625446 -21.42087528 6L1448 IRS2 00 25 22 00 45 11 157.999933 -21.44086933 6L1455 FIR4 00 27 39 00 13 57 158.7573688 -21.5635932 6NGC 1333 IRAS 4A 00 29 10 00 13 30 158.3951307 -20.57487539 6NGC 1333 IRAS 4B 00 29 12 00 13 10 158.403568 -20.57586092 6NGC 1333 SVS13 00 29 03 31 15 59 0 158.3466066 -20.55735787 6NGC 1333 IRAS 2A 00 28 55 00 13 36 158.3481567 -20.60592637 6NGC 1333 SK31 00 28 30 00 21 34 158.1850432 -20.55488787 618151-1208 00 17 58 -12 07 27.0 93.68964695 -73.0666289 7G19.27+0.1M2 00 25 53 -12 04 48.0 99.97426813 -73.80192691 7G19.27+0.1M1 00 25 58 -12 03 59.0 100.0598358 -73.79641841 718236 -1205 00 26 25 -12 03 51.4 100.4320633 -73.83305747 718264 -1152 00 29 14 -11 50 21.3 103.0357059 -73.84716384 7G23.60+0.0M1 00 34 12 -08 19 06.0 109.896529 -70.75254837 718 316 -0602 00 34 21 -05 59 30.4 111.2823349 -68.47616406 7G23.60+0.0M2 00 34 21 -08 18 07.0 110.0167873 -70.74399075 7G24.33+0.1M1 00 35 08 -07 35 04.0 110.9981433 -70.07750763 7G34.43+0.2M1f 00 53 18 01 25 23.0 123.9055439 -61.44517325 718507+0121 00 53 20 01 24 37.1 123.9233812 -61.45779458 7G34.43+0.2M3 00 53 20 01 28 23.0 123.9213622 -61.39505201 719095+0930 00 11 54 09 35 52.0 106.9585604 -52.04349377 723139+5939 00 16 11 59 55 30.8 118.5234962 -2.644424315 7CygX-N3 20 35 34.1 42 20 05.0 81.30046387 1.051232341 8CygX-N12 20 36 57.4 42 11 27.5 81.34026415 0.759582145 8CygX-N40 20 38 59.8 42 23 42.0 81.73116364 0.583044463 8CygX-N48 20 39 01.5 42 22 04.0 81.71273668 0.562334387 8CygX-N53 20 39 03.1 42 25 50.0 81.76556251 0.59661271 8CygX-N63 20 40 05.2 41 32 12.0 81.17414373 -0.10071321 8GSS 30-IRS1 00 26 21 -24 23 04.1 -6.930072345 16.9362998 9GSS 30-IRS3 00 26 22 -24 22 51.4 -6.92468264 16.93578636 9WL 12 00 26 44 -24 34 48 -7.02305407 16.74157486 9LFAM26 00 27 05 -24 36 29.8 -6.990311054 16.66317731 9WL 17 00 27 07 -24 38 16.0 -7.008202968 16.6380019 9Elias 29 00 27 10 -24 37 21.0 -6.988397802 16.63956293 9IRS 37 00 27 18 -24 28 58 -6.857947274 16.70902694 9WL 3 00 27 19 -24 28 45 -6.85250181 16.70855998 9WL 6 00 27 22 -24 29 55 -6.859921843 16.68718296 9IRS 43 00 27 27 -24 40 51 -6.989754645 16.55269773 9IRS 44 00 27 28 -24 39 33.0 -6.970166782 16.5641546 9Elias 32 00 27 29 -24 27 19.8 -6.8078134 16.69566408 9Elias 33 00 27 30 -24 27 43 -6.810260751 16.68856334 9IRS 54 00 27 52 -24 31 46.0 -6.805859958 16.58134071 9IRAS 16253-2429 00 28 22 -24 36 23.7 -6.788334356 16.44498815 9IRS 63 00 31 36 -24 01 29.5 -5.827604207 16.26832187 9RNO 91 16 34 29 -15 47 01 1.355476588 20.96722817 9

26


Table 4: Outflow parameters (with source mass and bolometric luminosity)

Source Mclump(M�) Mout(M�) Mout(M� yr−1) Lm(L�) FCO(M� kms−1 yr) t (yr) Ref

G 20.0810.135 9200 280 5.00E+01 210 4.60E-02 5.70E+04 1G 21.882+0.013 65 4 2.00E+00 3 8.90E-04 2.60E+04 1G 22.038+0.222 430 30 9.00E+00 18 5.30E-03 3.30E+04 1G 22.356+0.066 810 14 1.00E+00 1 3.80E-04 1.80E+05 1G 22.4350.169 2300 71 3.00E+00 2 1.00E-03 2.30E+05 1G 23.003+0.124 200 3 1.00E+00 0 1.90E-04 6.60E+04 1G 23.0100.411 1700 100 1.60E+01 100 1.80E-02 6.40E+04 1G 23.2060.378 7100 76 1.30E+01 57 1.20E-02 5.80E+04 1G 23.3650.291 660 20 2.00E+00 1 6.30E-04 1.30E+05 1G 23.4370.184 2300 110 3.10E+01 150 3.10E-02 3.60E+04 1G 23.484+0.097 620 16 3.00E+00 4 1.40E-03 5.80E+04 1G 23.7060.198 2600 270 8.00E+00 7 3.40E-03 3.30E+05 1G 24.329+0.144 3000 35 6.00E+00 14 3.80E-03 6.00E+04 1G 24.4930.039 2700 81 1.10E+01 39 9.80E-03 7.20E+04 1G 24.790+0.083A 0 48 7.00E+00 23 6.00E-03 6.70E+04 1G 24.850+0.087 530 42 3.00E+00 2 1.10E-03 1.50E+05 1G 25.650+1.050 0 750 7.60E+01 380 7.80E-02 9.90E+04 1G 25.710+0.044 300 220 1.00E+01 12 4.20E-03 2.10E+05 1G 25.8260.178 2100 25 6.00E+00 17 4.30E-03 4.40E+04 1G 28.1480.004 700 26 4.00E+00 5 2.00E-03 6.90E+04 1G 28.2010.049 7500 370 8.60E+01 660 1.00E-01 4.30E+04 1G 28.2820.359 510 53 1.00E+01 21 6.50E-03 5.30E+04 1G 28.3050.387 2300 570 3.20E+01 16 9.30E-03 1.80E+05 1G 28.3210.011 670 70 9.00E+00 8 3.40E-03 8.20E+04 1G 28.608+0.018 1600 110 2.00E+01 67 1.60E-02 5.70E+04 1G 28.8320.253 1500 81 1.70E+01 66 1.40E-02 4.80E+04 1G 29.6030.625 310 13 3.00E+00 1 4.00E-04 1.00E+05 1G 29.8650.043 1300 300 1.60E+01 29 1.00E-02 1.80E+05 1G 29.9560.016A 5200 250 3.10E+01 78 2.20E-02 8.10E+04 1G 29.9560.016B 1000 21 3.00E+00 9 2.30E-03 7.90E+04 1G 29.9790.047 1900 120 1.60E+01 72 1.40E-02 7.60E+04 1G 30.317+0.070 930 67 5.00E+00 5 2.10E-03 1.50E+05 1G 30.370+0.482A 1200 73 3.00E+00 3 1.30E-03 2.40E+05 1G 30.4000.296 570 84 9.00E+00 20 5.50E-03 9.00E+04 1G 30.4190.232 2100 190 1.50E+01 15 6.10E-03 1.30E+05 1G 30.424+0.466 1900 230 6.00E+00 5 2.60E-03 3.80E+05 1G 30.7040.068 3700 67 6.10E+01 34 9.10E-03 2.20E+04 1G 30.781+0.231 30 8 2.00E+00 1 5.50E-04 4.40E+04 1G 30.788+0.204 3000 120 1.20E+01 27 8.20E-03 1.00E+05 1G 30.819+0.273 380 11 3.00E+00 2 8.20E-04 7.20E+04 1G 30.898+0.162 1100 26 2.00E+00 1 5.70E-04 2.90E+05 1G 30.973+0.562(1) 660 310 1.10E+01 3 2.10E-03 2.70E+05 1G 30.973+0.562(2) 11 5 2.00E+00 0 2.80E-04 3.60E+04 1G 30.980+0.216 780 19 3.00E+00 330 7.30E-03 1.20E+05 1G 31.061+0.094(1) 930 110 7.00E+00 15 4.70E-03 1.70E+05 1G 31.061+0.094(2) 10 1 1.00E+00 2 5.00E-04 1.80E+04 1G 31.076+0.457(1) 1300 110 7.00E+00 30 5.10E-03 3.00E+05 1G 31.076+0.457(2) 34 12 6.00E+00 6 1.10E-03 3.80E+04 1G 31.122+0.063 700 300 1.00E+01 22 6.90E-03 2.90E+05 1G 31.1820.148A 830 50 3.00E+00 2 1.20E-03 1.70E+05 1G 31.282+0.062 3800 110 9.00E+00 20 6.20E-03 1.30E+05 1G 31.412+0.307 8700 73 9.00E+00 35 8.60E-03 7.90E+04 1G 31.5940.192(1) 720 160 3.00E+00 2 9.90E-04 6.00E+05 1G 32.7440.075 6000 220 2.40E+01 67 1.80E-02 9.40E+04 1G 33.3170.360(1) 500 46 6.00E+00 3 1.40E-03 1.70E+05 1G 33.3170.360(2) 20 2 1.00E+00 0 1.40E-04 6.80E+04 1G 33.6340.021 630 46 6.00E+00 3 1.50E-03 7.40E+04 1


Table 4 continued.


G 20.0810.135 9200 280 5.00E+01 210 4.60E-02 5.70E+04 1G 21.882+0.013 65 4 2.00E+00 3 8.90E-04 2.60E+04 1G 22.038+0.222 430 30 9.00E+00 18 5.30E-03 3.30E+04 1G 22.356+0.066 810 14 1.00E+00 1 3.80E-04 1.80E+05 1G 22.4350.169 2300 71 3.00E+00 2 1.00E-03 2.30E+05 1G 23.003+0.124 200 3 1.00E+00 0 1.90E-04 6.60E+04 1G 23.0100.411 1700 100 1.60E+01 100 1.80E-02 6.40E+04 1G 23.2060.378 7100 76 1.30E+01 57 1.20E-02 5.80E+04 1G 23.3650.291 660 20 2.00E+00 1 6.30E-04 1.30E+05 1G 23.4370.184 2300 110 3.10E+01 150 3.10E-02 3.60E+04 1G 23.484+0.097 620 16 3.00E+00 4 1.40E-03 5.80E+04 1G 23.7060.198 2600 270 8.00E+00 7 3.40E-03 3.30E+05 1G 24.329+0.144 3000 35 6.00E+00 14 3.80E-03 6.00E+04 1G 24.4930.039 2700 81 1.10E+01 39 9.80E-03 7.20E+04 1G 24.790+0.083A 0 48 7.00E+00 23 6.00E-03 6.70E+04 1G 24.850+0.087 530 42 3.00E+00 2 1.10E-03 1.50E+05 1G 25.650+1.050 0 750 7.60E+01 380 7.80E-02 9.90E+04 1G 25.710+0.044 300 220 1.00E+01 12 4.20E-03 2.10E+05 1G 25.8260.178 2100 25 6.00E+00 17 4.30E-03 4.40E+04 1G 28.1480.004 700 26 4.00E+00 5 2.00E-03 6.90E+04 1G 28.2010.049 7500 370 8.60E+01 660 1.00E-01 4.30E+04 1G 28.2820.359 510 53 1.00E+01 21 6.50E-03 5.30E+04 1G 28.3050.387 2300 570 3.20E+01 16 9.30E-03 1.80E+05 1G 28.3210.011 670 70 9.00E+00 8 3.40E-03 8.20E+04 1G 28.608+0.018 1600 110 2.00E+01 67 1.60E-02 5.70E+04 1G 28.8320.253 1500 81 1.70E+01 66 1.40E-02 4.80E+04 1G 29.6030.625 310 13 3.00E+00 1 4.00E-04 1.00E+05 1G 29.8650.043 1300 300 1.60E+01 29 1.00E-02 1.80E+05 1G 29.9560.016A 5200 250 3.10E+01 78 2.20E-02 8.10E+04 1G 29.9560.016B 1000 21 3.00E+00 9 2.30E-03 7.90E+04 1G 29.9790.047 1900 120 1.60E+01 72 1.40E-02 7.60E+04 1G 30.317+0.070 930 67 5.00E+00 5 2.10E-03 1.50E+05 1G 30.370+0.482A 1200 73 3.00E+00 3 1.30E-03 2.40E+05 1G 30.4000.296 570 84 9.00E+00 20 5.50E-03 9.00E+04 1G 30.4190.232 2100 190 1.50E+01 15 6.10E-03 1.30E+05 1G 30.424+0.466 1900 230 6.00E+00 5 2.60E-03 3.80E+05 1G 30.7040.068 3700 67 6.10E+01 34 9.10E-03 2.20E+04 1G 30.781+0.231 30 8 2.00E+00 1 5.50E-04 4.40E+04 1G 30.788+0.204 3000 120 1.20E+01 27 8.20E-03 1.00E+05 1G 30.819+0.273 380 11 3.00E+00 2 8.20E-04 7.20E+04 1G 30.898+0.162 1100 26 2.00E+00 1 5.70E-04 2.90E+05 1G 30.973+0.562(1) 660 310 1.10E+01 3 2.10E-03 2.70E+05 1G 30.973+0.562(2) 11 5 2.00E+00 0 2.80E-04 3.60E+04 1G 30.980+0.216 780 19 3.00E+00 330 7.30E-03 1.20E+05 1G 31.061+0.094(1) 930 110 7.00E+00 15 4.70E-03 1.70E+05 1G 31.061+0.094(2) 10 1 1.00E+00 2 5.00E-04 1.80E+04 1G 31.076+0.457(1) 1300 110 7.00E+00 30 5.10E-03 3.00E+05 1G 31.076+0.457(2) 34 12 6.00E+00 6 1.10E-03 3.80E+04 1G 31.122+0.063 700 300 1.00E+01 22 6.90E-03 2.90E+05 1G 31.1820.148A 830 50 3.00E+00 2 1.20E-03 1.70E+05 1G 31.282+0.062 3800 110 9.00E+00 20 6.20E-03 1.30E+05 1G 31.412+0.307 8700 73 9.00E+00 35 8.60E-03 7.90E+04 1G 31.5940.192(1) 720 160 3.00E+00 2 9.90E-04 6.00E+05 1G 32.7440.075 6000 220 2.40E+01 67 1.80E-02 9.40E+04 1G 33.3170.360(1) 500 46 6.00E+00 3 1.40E-03 1.70E+05 1G 33.3170.360(2) 20 2 1.00E+00 0 1.40E-04 6.80E+04 1G 33.6340.021 630 46 6.00E+00 3 1.50E-03 7.40E+04 1


Table 4 continued.


05358+3543 1226 21 5.20E+00 9.1 7.90E-03 3.70E+04 4181511208 1594 12 1.70E-04 1.1 1.50E-03 7.10E+04 4181821433 41438 203 1.30E-03 8.2 1.10E-02 1.53E+05 4182641152 110652 405 5.80E-03 135 9.80E-02 7.00E+04 4183450641 13720 143 9.50E-04 13.1 1.20E-02 1.50E+05 4184700044 8384 102 6.90E-04 6 7.10E-03 1.48E+05 418566+0408 4220 32 4.30E-04 10 7.20E-03 7.50E+04 419012+0536 7770 134 1.10E-03 8.9 1.10E-02 1.22E+05 419035+0641 772 3 9.00E-05 0.9 1.00E-03 2.90E+04 419217+1651 19036 108 1.40E-03 38.8 2.60E-02 7.50E+04 419266+1745 12526 35 1.90E-04 1.3 1.70E-03 1.84E+05 419410+2336 15522 1423 2.40E-02 982.9 5.40E-01 5.90E+04 419411+2306 3920 46 6.70E-04 10.8 9.40E-03 6.90E+04 420216+4107 342 6 1.70E-04 0.8 1.30E-03 3.50E+04 420293+3952 922 9 8.60E-04 59.2 2.50E-02 1.10E+04 422134+5834 872 17 4.90E-04 7.9 6.90E-03 3.50E+04 422570+5912 2938 73 6.10E-04 7.8 7.50E-03 1.21E+05 423033+5951 4654 32 6.40E-04 16.9 1.10E-02 5.00E+04 423139+5939 3518 57 1.00E-03 11.7 1.20E-02 5.40E+04 423151+5912 2458 21 1.00E-03 72.7 2.90E-02 2.00E+04 4SIMBA af 6.5 0.0213 6.31E-07 — 3.64E-06 5.90E+04 5MMS 2 2.8 0.101 9.22E-06 — 2.02E-04 8.38E+04 5MMS 5 4.5 0.054 6.20E-06 — 8.70E-05 1.75E+04 5MMS 7 4.1 0.158 2.44E-06 — 3.87E-05 3.39E+05 5MMS 9 4.7 0.6345 2.10E-05 — 4.40E-04 7.90E+04 5FIR 2 3.9 0.059 7.70E-06 — 1.28E-04 1.33E+04 5FIR 3 7.7 0.1465 4.17E-05 — 1.65E-03 4.03E+04 5VLA 13 1 0.117 7.10E-06 — 1.06E-04 2.03E+04 5FIR 6b 3.4 0.092 7.00E-06 — 6.60E-05 3.70E+04 5FIR 6 c 5.1 0.069 4.20E-06 — 6.80E-05 3.10E+04 5b1c 17.7 — — — 1.70E-07 — 6b1bS 26.1 — — — 1.23E-06 — 6b1d 15 — — — 1.80E-07 — 6IRAS 03301+3057 2.8 — — — 1.26E-06 — 6B1 SMM11 0.9 — — — 4.40E-07 — 6HH211 22.9 — — — 6.20E-07 — 6IC 348 MMS 10.1 — — — 5.10E-07 — 6L1448 NW 30.9 — — — 2.75E-06 — 6L1448 N A/B 16.3 — — — 3.64E-06 — 6L1448 C 18.2 — — — 2.09E-06 — 6L1448 IRS2 16.4 — — — 1.01E-06 — 6L1455 FIR4 5.3 — — — 9.40E-07 — 6NGC 1333 IRAS 4A 52.1 — — — 4.55E-06 — 6NGC 1333 IRAS 4B 25.2 — — — 1.04E-06 — 6NGC 1333 SVS13 35.6 — — — 1.96E-05 — 6NGC 1333 IRAS 2A 27.2 — — — 7.27E-06 — 6NGC 1333 SK31 12.1 — — — 1.92E-06 — 618151?12081 478 9.7 3.23E-04 — 1.20E-03 3.00E+04 7G19.27+0.1M2 77 3.8 2.53E-04 — 1.73E-03 1.50E+04 7G19.27+0.1M1 193 13 1.44E-03 — 1.56E-02 9.00E+03 718236?1205 935 35 1.59E-03 — 1.27E-02 2.20E+04 718264?1152 1634 110 5.24E-03 — 1.01E-01 2.10E+04 7G23.60+0.0M1 1820 36 5.29E-04 — 3.09E-03 6.80E+04 718?316?0602 1613 103 1.29E-02 — 1.75E-01 8.00E+03 7G23.60+0.0M2 287 24 1.50E-03 — 2.94E-02 1.60E+04 7G24.33+0.1M1 2674 54 8.71E-04 — 6.77E-03 6.20E+04 7G34.43+0.2M1f 1369 76 3.30E-03 — 2.74E-02 2.30E+04 718507+0121 3065 99 2.48E-03 — 1.88E-02 4.00E+04 7G34.43+0.2M3 612 50 2.94E-03 — 2.59E-02 1.70E+04 719095+0930 971 8.5 3.15E-04 — 2.04E-03 2.70E+04 723139+5939 972 63 4.20E-03 — 3.00E-02 1.50E+04 7


Table 4 continued.


CygXN3MM1 9.4 — — — 1.31E-03 — 8CygXN3MM2 7.4 — — — 7.20E-04 — 8CygXN12MM1 15.6 — — 0.0013 3.60E-04 — 8CygXN12MM2 12.5 — — — 1.20E-04 — 8CygXN48MM1 11.8 — — — 1.35E-03 — 8CygXN48MM2 8.2 — — — 3.50E-04 — 8CygXN53MM1 26.6 — — — 4.12E-03 — 8CygXN53MM2 16.9 — — — 1.21E-03 — 8CygXN63MM1 38.6 — — — 2.91E-03 — 8L1448IRS3 2.3 — — — 1.00E-04 — 9L1448C 1.4 — — — 1.40E-04 — 903282+3035 0.6 0.09 — — 6.80E-05 — 9B5IRSI 0.2 — — — 4.10E-05 — 904166+2706 0.2 0.07 — — 3.10E-06 — 904169+2702 0.2 0.05 — — 5.70E-06 — 904181+2655 0.05 2.3 — — 2.20E-06 — 904302+2247 0.05 0.8 — — 3.10E-06 — 904361+2547 0.15 0.2 — — 6.10E-06 — 9TMC1A 0.2 0.02 — — 1.60E-05 — 9L1527 0.4 0.1 — — 7.90E-06 — 904381+2540 0.05 0.06 — — 5.70E-06 — 9L1719B 0.15 — — — 4.00E-07 — 9VLA1623 0.6 — — — 1.40E-04 — 9WL12 0.03 — — — 6.00E-06 — 9EL29 0.09 — — — 1.50E-05 — 9IRS43 0.05 — — — 1.50E-05 — 9IRS44 0.05 — — — 2.70E-05 — 9IRS48 0.06 — — — 3.00E-05 — 9IRS51 0.06 — — — 5.50E-06 — 9L1709B 0.3 — — — 6.30E-06 — 9IRS67 0.07 0.03 — — 1.00E-05 — 9162932422 2.3 0.39 — — 4.20E-04 — 9L260 0.05 — — — 3.00E-07 — 9L483 0.2 — — — 1.50E-05 — 9L723 0.6 — — — 3.70E-04 — 9B335 0.8 0.1 — — 1.20E-05 — 9L1152 0.05 — — — 4.70E-06 — 9L1082A 0.09 — — — 2.50E-05 — 9Elias 29 (scen 1)e 0.062 0.00225 2.30E-07 0.000063 1.60E-05 4.10E+03 10Elias 29 (scen 2)e 0.062 0.0042 3.90E-07 0.000096 2.30E-05 7.40E+03 10Elias 33 0.28 0.066 2.10E-06 0.0033 4.30E-04 1.30E+04 10IRAS 162532429 0.1 0.00073 2.00E-08 0.000017 4.10E-06 9.10E+03 10IRS 37 0.012 0.00038 4.00E-08 0.000004 1.40E-06 4.30E+03 10IRS 43 0.17 0.00062 9.00E-08 0.000027 7.40E-06 2.40E+03 10IRS 44 0.08 0.00161 9.00E-08 0.00017 2.90E-05 4.50E+03 10IRS 46 0.033 0.00195 1.00E-07 0.000055 1.70E-05 3.40E+03 10IRS 54 0.031 0.00162 2.70E-07 0.000097 1.90E-05 4.40E+03 10IRS 63 0.16 0.0007 1.30E-07 0.000031 6.80E-06 3.30E+03 10LFAM26 (scen 1)e 0.045 0.00296 3.60E-07 0.00024 3.70E-05 5.60E+03 10LFAM26 (scen 2)e,g 0.045 0.00299 2.00E-08 0.0009 9.00E-05 1.40E+04 10RNO 91 0.01 0.01167 9.70E-07 0.00021 4.50E-05 1.10E+04 10WL 6 0.004 0.00104 9.00E-08 0.000062 1.30E-05 3.10E+03 10WL 12 0.046 0.00033 2.00E-08 0.000006 2.20E-06 5.50E+03 10WL 17 0.04 0.00009 0.00E+00 0.000001 5.00E-07 7.70E+03 10UFO 1 (IRS 63)a — 0.00036 2.00E-08 0.000003 1.50E-06 6.10E+03 10UFO 2 (IRS 37)a — 0.00166 1.40E-07 0.00003 8.80E-06 4.70E+03 10UFO 3 (WL 12)a — 0.00125 3.00E-08 0.000005 2.30E-06 8.90E+03 10UFO 4 (IRS 54) — 0.00167 5.00E-08 0.000013 5.20E-06 8.70E+03 10UFO 5 (IRS 44)a — 0.00021 5.00E-08 0.000007 2.60E-06 2.40E+03 10UFO 6 (IRS 44)a — 0 4.00E-08 0.000003 1.00E-06 2.90E+03 10

30

Investigation_in_Physics

Documents