EDP Sciences logo
Subscriber Authentication Point
Search
Menu
Home All issues Volume 666 (October 2022) A&A, 666 (2022) C3 Full HTML
Open Access
Erratum
This article is an erratum for:
[https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201629711]

Issue
A&A
Volume 666, October 2022
Article Number C3
Number of page(s) 2
Section Interstellar and circumstellar matter
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201629711e
Published online 18 October 2022

Erratum for: A&A, 600, A123 (2017), https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201629711

We would like to draw attention to the fact that the mass absorption coefficients (MACs) presented in the paper “Low temperature MIR to submillimeter mass absorption coefficient of interstellar dust analogues. I. Mg-rich glassy silicates” published in A&A 600, A123 (2017) are the MACs of the grains in the polyethylene matrix and not in vacuum. Indeed, Eq. (4) in Demyk et al. (2017) gives the MAC for the isolated grains in the matrix. The additional step to correct for the effect of the matrix, which is detailed in Mennella et al. (1998), was not done in Demyk et al. (2017). Therefore, in order to compare the experimental MACs presented in Demyk et al. (2017) with those calculated from optical constants available in databases or in cosmic dust models, it is necessary to perform the calculations in the same medium used to acquire the experimental data. This has not been done in Demyk et al. (2017) where Sect. 5.1, Figs. 5 and 8, and Table 1 compare MACs that are not comparable: the MACs for grains in polyethylene (PE) for the measurements and the MACs for grains in vacuum for the cosmic dust models. We provide here new versions of Table 1 and Figs. 5 and 8 of Demyk et al. (2017) in which the MAC for the silicates from astronomical models were calculated in an ambient medium of refractive index n = 1.51 similar to the one of the pellets (polyethylene). Table 1 and Figs. 1 and 2 of the corrigendum replace Table 1, Fig. 5, and Fig. 8 of Demyk et al. (2017), respectively.

The main conclusions of the comparison of the experimental data with cosmic dust models have not changed: the measured MACs of the X40, X50A, and X50B samples are higher than the MACs of cosmic dust models and their spectral shapes are very different from the λ−2 asymptotic behaviour adopted in cosmic dust models. However, the amplitude of the differences are reduced (see Table 1 and Fig. 1). The X40 sample, the most absorbent, is 2−2.4 times more absorbent at 100 µm than the models and about 5 to 9 times at longer wavelengths. The two X50 samples are 1.3−2.7 times more absorbent than the models over the entire spectral range. For the X35 samples the MAC is 1.5−2.3 times more absorbent in the 100−300 µm range and becomes as absorbent or even less absorbent at longer wavelengths. At λ = 100 µm, the MAC averaged over the four samples with different compositions, 〈MAC1〉, is twice as large as the MAC from the dust model calculated for a collection of spherical grains with a size distribution centred at 1 µm and 2.4 times larger at λ = 1mm for 10 K grains (Table 1 and Fig. 2). At 10 K, 〉MAC1〉 is 1.7 and 2 times larger than the MAC calculated for a continuous distribution of ellipsoid (CDE) at 100 µm and 1 mm, respectively. At 10 K, 〉MAC2〉, the MAC averaged over the three samples with different compositions, X35, X50A, and X50B, is higher than the modelled MACs by a factor of ~1.7 at 100 and 250 µm, 1.3 at 500 µm, and by a factor of ~1 at 1 mm. The decrease in the MAC value with the temperature has to be considered in models based on MIR-to-FIR experimental MACs since using MACs measured at room-temperature instead of 10 K induces errors of a factor of 1.3−7 on the MAC (see Table 1) and thus on the calculated dust mass, depending on the sample and wavelength.

This also affects the comparison with previous experimental data if they are corrected for the effect of the matrix. Mennella et al. (1998) indicated that the matrix-correction factor is of the order of 1.3 for amorphous fayalite. Therefore, the MAC presented in Demyk et al. (2017) should be divided by a similar factor to be compared with experimental data from Mennella et al. (1998), Boudet et al. (2005), and Agladze et al. (1996). However, for a more reliable comparison, we advise the use of the optical constants derived from these MACs by Demyk et al. (2022) to simulate the MAC of the grains in a vacuum.

References

  1. Agladze, N. I., Sievers, A. J., Jones, S. A., Burlitch, J. M., & Beckwith, S. V. W. 1996, ApJ, 462, 1026 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  2. Boudet, N., Mutschke, H., Nayral, C., et al. 2005, ApJ, 633, 272 [Google Scholar]
  3. Demyk, K., Meny, C., Leroux, H., et al. 2017, A&A, 606, A50 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  4. Demyk, K., Gromov, V., Meny, C., et al. 2022, A&A, in press https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202243815 [Google Scholar]
  5. Jones, A. P., Fanciullo, L., Köhler, M., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A62 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  6. Li, A., & Draine, B. T. 2001, ApJ, 554, 778 [Google Scholar]
  7. Mennella, V., Brucato, J. R., Colangeli, L., et al. 1998, ApJ, 496, 1058 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

© K. Demyk et al. 2022

Licence Creative CommonsOpen Access article, published by EDP Sciences, under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

This article is published in open access under the Subscribe-to-Open model. Subscribe to A&A to support open access publication.

All Tables

Table 1

Value of the MAC in the polyethylene matrix for the glassy samples X35, X4O, X5OA, and X5OB compared with that for the silicate component of cosmic dust models in polyethylene.

In the text

All Figures

thumbnail Fig. 1

Comparison of the measured MAC of the samples X5OA, X5OB, X4O, and X35 at 10 K with the M ACs calculated for cosmic dust models using Mie theory for spherical grains of 0.1 μm in size: astrosìl from (Li & Draine 2001) (red curve) and the two silicates from the THEMIS dust model (Jones et al. 2013): amorphous enstatite (cyan curve) and amorphous forsterite (green curve). We note that to be comparable with the experimental data, the MACs were modelled in PE and not in vacuum.
In the text
thumbnail Fig. 2

Comparison of averaged experimental MAC with the MACs calculated from cosmic dust model. The solid line curves with the uncertainty represent the MAC averaged on the four samples X35, X4O, X5OA, and X5OB: (red) MAC at 300 K, (blue) MAC at 10 K. The MAC for the astrosìl from (Li & Draine 2001) was calculated using Mie theory for a 0.1 μm size grain (black), for a log-normal grain size distribution with a mean diameter of 1 μm for spherical grains (red), and for a CDE model (green). We note that to be comparable with the experimental data, the MACs were not modelled in vacuum but in PE.
In the text

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.