Table 3:

¹²CO and C¹⁸O results^a.

Source	12CO 3-2		C18O 3-2			CO 4-3		CO 7-6
					V
	(K km s-1)	(K)	(K km s-1)	(K)	(km s-1)	(K km s-1)	(K)	(K km s-1)	(K)
Chamaeleon
Ced 110 IRS 4	30.7	7.5	3.7	2.1	1.5	29.8	7.5	24.8	6.9
Ced 110 IRS 6	20.0	9.3	1.6	1.4	1.1	9.7	4.9	8.8	2.5
Cha IRS 6a	-	-	1.2	1.1	1.0	-	-	-	-
Cha IRN	11.1	3.5	2.3	1.8	1.2	6.5	3.0	14.0	5.2
Cha INa 2	11.3	6.7	1.3	1.6	0.8	10.0	4.7	<1.5	-
Corona australis
CrA IRAS 32	51.6	11.0	4.6e	4.4	1.0	-	-	-	-
HH 100-off	102.6	24.7	6.3	5.2	1.1	-	-	-	-
RCrA IRS 5	144.2	29.9	11.4	8.7	1.2	-	-	-	-
RCrA IRS 7A	406.0	46.4	22.5	8.9	2.2	-	-	-	-
RCrA IRS 7B	332.7	40.4	23.0	10.0	2.2	-	-	-	-
RCrA TS 3.5	16.8	6.4	<0.3	-	-	-	-	-	-
Isolated
HH 46c	82.5	19.4	3.2	3.3	0.9	70.5	14.9	46.5	8.6
IRAS 07178-4429	24.0	11.4	1.7	2.3	0.7	-	-	-	-
IRAS 12496-7650b	92.8	25	9.2	1.9	1.1	90.0	23	43.7	19.2
IRAS 13546-3941	16.3	11.4	1.8	2.3	0.7	-	-	-	-
IRAS 15398-3359	25.8	9.0	0.5	1.2	0.4	19.9	5.6	45.3	8.5

^a Integrated intensities are across the entire line profile; ^b from van Kempen et al. (2006); ^c CO 7-6 from van Kempen et al. (2009a); ^d calibration uncertainties estimated at 20% dominate the uncertainty of the integrated intensity; ^e this is a significant discrepancy from the value reported in Schöier et al. (2006), which determined this intensity to be 6.5 K km s^-1. A possible explanation can be the inaccurate calibration during science verification of Schöier et al. (2006).