1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2:
3: \usepackage{epsfig}
4: \newcommand{\msun}{{\rm M}_{\odot}}
5: \newcommand{\Hm}{\rm{H}^{-}}
6: \newcommand{\me}{\rm{e^{-}}}
7: \newcommand{\Hp}{\rm{H}^{+}}
8: \newcommand{\Dp}{\rm{D}^{+}}
9: \newcommand{\Hep}{\rm{He}^{+}}
10: \newcommand{\mH}{\rm{H}}
11: \newcommand{\mD}{\rm{D}}
12: \newcommand{\He}{\rm{He}}
13: \newcommand{\mHt}{\rm{H}_{2}}
14: \newcommand{\hd}{\rm{HD}}
15: \newcommand{\mHtp}{\rm{H}_{2}^{+}}
16: \newcommand{\hi}{\hbox{H\,{\sc i}}\,}
17: \newcommand{\hii}{\hbox{H\,{\sc ii}}\,}
18: \newcommand{\ci}{\hbox{C\,{\sc i}}\,}
19: \newcommand{\cii}{\rm{C}^{+}}
20: \newcommand{\oii}{\rm{O}^{+}}
21: \newcommand{\oi}{\hbox{O\,{\sc i}}\,}
22: \newcommand{\siI}{\hbox{Si\,{\sc i}}\,}
23: \newcommand{\siii}{\rm{Si}^{+}}
24: \newcommand{\mC}{\rm{C}}
25: \newcommand{\cp}{\rm{C^{+}}}
26: \newcommand{\mO}{\rm{O}}
27: \newcommand{\op}{\rm{O}^{+}}
28: \newcommand{\oh}{{\rm OH}}
29: \newcommand{\mSi}{\rm{Si}}
30: \newcommand{\sip}{\rm{Si^{+}}}
31: \newcommand{\sipp}{\rm{Si^{++}}}
32: \newcommand{\expf}[3]{\exp \left(#1\frac{#2}{#3}\right)}
33: \def\simless{\mathbin{\lower 3pt\hbox
34: {$\rlap{\raise 5pt\hbox{$\char'074$}}\mathchar"7218$}}}
35: \def\simgreat{\mathbin{\lower 3pt\hbox
36: {$\rlap{\raise 5pt\hbox{$\char'076$}}\mathchar"7218$}}}
37:
38: \usepackage{natbib}
39: \bibpunct{(}{)}{;}{a}{}{,}
40:
41: \shorttitle{Chemistry and cooling at low $n$ and low ${\rm Z}$}
42: \shortauthors{Glover \& Jappsen}
43:
44: \begin{document}
45:
46: \title{Star formation at very low metallicity. I: Chemistry and cooling at low densities}
47:
48:
49: \author{S.~C.~O. Glover$^{1,2}$, A.-K. Jappsen$^{1,3}$}
50:
51: \affil{$^1$Astrophysikalisches Institut Potsdam,\\An der Sternwarte 16, 14482
52: Potsdam, Germany; sglover@aip.de}
53: \affil{$^2$Department of Astrophysics, American Museum of Natural History,
54: \\79th Street at Central Park West, New York, NY 10024-5192, USA}
55: \affil{$^3$ Canadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics,\\
56: University of Toronto, 60 St.\ George Street, Toronto, ON M5S 3H8, Canada;
57: jappsen@cita.utoronto.ca}
58:
59: \begin{abstract}
60: We present a simplified chemical and thermal model designed to allow
61: computationally efficient study of the thermal evolution of metal-poor gas
62: within large numerical simulations. Our main simplification is the neglect
63: of the molecular chemistry of the heavy elements. The only molecular
64: chemistry retained within the model is the formation and destruction of
65: molecular hydrogen. Despite this major simplification, the model allows
66: for accurate treatment of the thermal evolution of the gas within a large
67: volume of parameter space. It is valid for temperatures $50 < T < 10000
68: \: {\rm K}$ and metallicities $0 < {\rm Z} < 0.1\: {\rm Z_{\odot}}$. In gas with
69: a metallicity ${\rm Z} = 0.1 \: {\rm Z_{\odot}}$, and in the absence of an
70: incident ultraviolet radiation field, it is valid for hydrogen number densities
71: $n_{\rm H} \simless 500 / t_{\rm char} \: {\rm cm^{-3}}$, where $t_{\rm char}$ is
72: the size in Myr of the characteristic physical timescale of interest in the
73: problem. If ${\rm Z} \ll 0.1 \: {\rm Z_{\odot}}$, or if a strong ultraviolet radiation
74: field is present, then the model remains accurate up to significantly higher
75: densities. We also discuss some possible applications of this model.
76: \end{abstract}
77: \keywords{astrochemistry --- molecular processes --- ISM: molecules --
78: galaxies: formation -- cosmology: theory}
79:
80: \section{Introduction}
81: It has long been known that cooling by molecular hydrogen, $\mHt$,
82: plays a major role in regulating star formation in primordial protogalaxies
83: \citep{SAS67,PEE68,MAT69,LEP83,TEG97,ABE02}. The importance of $\mHt$
84: stems from the fact that in most circumstances it is the dominant coolant in
85: primordial gas at $T < 10^{4} \: {\rm K}$. As a result, the chemistry of $\mHt$
86: in primordial gas has attracted considerable study
87: \citep{dl87,bl91,ABE97,GP98,sld98, lsd02}
88: and it is now generally accepted that only a small chemical network,
89: of maybe 20--30 reactions, is required to model $\mHt$ chemistry over a
90: very wide range of conditions in these systems.
91:
92: The introduction of metals into the gas, as will occur following enrichment
93: of their surroundings by the first generation of supernovae, complicates
94: matters enormously. Many other atomic and molecular coolants become
95: available and the associated chemistry is highly complex: for instance,
96: a reasonably complex model of purely gas-phase chemistry can easily
97: stretch to $\sim 400$ reactants and almost 4000 reactions
98: \citep[e.g.][]{TEU00}.
99: This would not matter were it not for two important points. First, many
100: astrophysicists believe that metal enrichment above a certain level
101: -- the so-called `critical metallicity' -- leads to a significant change in
102: the stellar initial mass function (IMF), from an IMF dominated by massive
103: stars to one that looks far more like the familiar Salpeter IMF of local
104: star formation \citep{BRO01,SCH02}. Second, testing this idea numerically
105: using three-dimensional hydrodynamical simulations requires us to model
106: the chemistry of the gas, but the highly detailed chemical models
107: mentioned above are impractical to use in high-resolution numerical
108: simulations, owing to their high computational cost. This is a consequence
109: of the fact that chemical rate equations are frequently stiff and so for
110: reasons of stability must be solved implicitly, with a computational cost
111: that scales as the cube of the number of chemical species involved.
112:
113: It is therefore important to look for ways to simplify the chemistry without
114: unduly compromising the accuracy of the resulting model. Major
115: simplifications can be made if we make the reasonable assumption
116: that the main coolants in low metallicity, high redshift gas will be
117: similar to those in the local interstellar medium -- which should be
118: true provided that the abundance ratios of the various metals in
119: low metallicity gas are not {\em too} unusual -- and also if we restrict
120: the range of physical conditions in which we are interested.
121:
122: In this paper, we present a chemical model designed to model the
123: chemistry of the major coolants in cool ($T \simless 10^{4} \: {\rm K}$)
124: low-metallicity gas at low gas densities. In the absence of ultraviolet
125: radiation, and in gas with ${\rm Z} = 0.1 \: {\rm Z_{\odot}}$, our model
126: is valid for atomic hydrogen number densities
127: $n_{\rm H} \simless 500 / t_{\rm char} \: {\rm cm^{-3}}$,
128: where $t_{\rm char}$ is the size in Myr of the characteristic physical
129: timescale of interest in the problem, corresponding to an overdensity of
130: $\delta = 2.5 \times 10^{9} t_{\rm char}^{-1} (1+z)^{-3}$ with respect to
131: the cosmological mean background density. At lower metallicities, or if
132: a moderately strong UV field is present, our model remains accurate up
133: to significantly higher densities. We do not
134: treat the cooling or chemistry of hot gas ($T \gg 10^{4} \: {\rm K}$) as
135: this has already been treated in detail elsewhere \citep[see e.g.][]{sd93}.
136:
137: The structure of this paper is as follows. In \S\ref{chem} we present our
138: simplified chemical network and discuss the principles determining our
139: choice of reactants (\S\ref{chem_choice}) and reactions (\S\ref{react_select}),
140: as well as our treatment of grain surface chemistry (\S\ref{surface_chem}) and
141: photochemistry (\S\ref{photochem}). In \S\ref{therm}, we discuss our
142: treatment of the main thermal processes included in our model, with
143: a particular emphasis on atomic fine structure cooling. We conclude
144: in \S\ref{appl} with a brief discussion of possible applications of our
145: model.
146:
147: \section{Chemical model}
148: \label{chem}
149: \subsection{Choice of chemical species}
150: \label{chem_choice}
151: Our choice of which chemical species to include in our simplified network was guided
152: by two main considerations. In order to properly model the thermal evolution of the gas,
153: we must be able to accurately model the evolution of the chemical abundances of
154: all of the major coolants. At the same time, in order to keep our chemical treatment
155: computationally efficient, we do not want to include more species than are strictly
156: necessary. In some cases, the decision on whether or not to include a species was
157: obvious. For instance, neutral atomic hydrogen, $\mH$, is a major constituent of the
158: gas and is also a major coolant at $T \sim 10^{4} \: {\rm K}$ and above. Molecular
159: hydrogen, $\mHt$, also must be included as it has long been recognised to be the
160: dominant coolant in metal-free gas at $200 < T < 10^{4} \: {\rm K}$ \citep{SAS67,PEE68},
161: and it is now clear that it also remains significant in metal-poor gas
162: \citep{OMU05,SAN06,jgkm07}. A good case can also be made for the inclusion of
163: $\hd$, which dominates the cooling in zero-metallicity gas at $T < 200 \: {\rm K}$
164: \citep{FLO00}, and which remains important at least up to metallicities
165: ${\rm Z} \sim 10^{-5} \: {\rm Z_{\odot}}$ \citep{OMU05}. As far as metals go, however,
166: the choice is less obvious. Metal atoms and ions produce little in the way of resonance
167: line cooling at $T < 10^{4} \: {\rm K}$, but many can act as sources of fine structure
168: line emission or emission from metastable transitions at these temperatures. Therefore,
169: in order to determine which of the various species are important coolants in the region of
170: parameter space that our model is designed to cover, we directly compared the
171: cooling rates produced by each species, under the assumption that the relative
172: abundances of the various elements were the same as in the local interstellar
173: medium.
174:
175: The species we investigated in this comparison were the same as those included
176: in the shock models of \citet{HOL89}: $\mC$, $\cp$, ${\rm Cl}$, ${\rm Cl^{+}}$,
177: ${\rm Fe}$, ${\rm Fe^{+}}$, ${\rm N}$, ${\rm N^{+}}$, ${\rm Ne^{+}}$, ${\rm Ni}$,
178: ${\rm Ni^{+}}$, $\mO$, ${\rm O^{+}}$, ${\rm S}$, ${\rm S^{+}}$, ${\rm Si}$ and
179: ${\rm Si^{+}}$. This list includes all of the neutral or singly ionized species that
180: have both non-negligible abundances and emission lines that are accessible
181: at $T < 10^{4} \: {\rm K}$. Doubly ionized species are unlikely to be abundant
182: in gas of this temperature, and so are unlikely to contribute significantly to the
183: total cooling rate. Atomic data for $\mC$, $\cp$, $\mO$, $\mSi$ and $\sip$ was
184: taken from the sources listed in Tables~\ref{fs_data}--\ref{fs_coll_rates}. For the
185: remaining species, we used data taken from \citet{HOL89}. For the relative
186: abundances of C, Fe, N, Ne, Ni, O, S and Si, we used values taken from
187: \citet{sem00}, while for Cl we used a value taken from \citet{asp06}.
188:
189: We investigated three different scenarios for the ionization state of the gas,
190: which we here refer to as the `no ionization', `moderate ionization' and
191: `high ionization' cases. In the no ionization case, we assumed that the gas
192: was completely neutral, and so set the electron abundance to zero, along
193: with the abundances of all of the ionized species. In the moderate ionization case,
194: we assumed that the fractional ionization of hydrogen was such that
195: $n_{\Hp} / n_{\mH} = 10^{-4}$, that species with ionization potentials lower
196: than that of hydrogen -- C, Cl, Fe, Ni, S and Si -- were fully ionized, and that
197: all of the other species remained fully neutral. Finally, in the high ionization case,
198: we assumed that $n_{\Hp} / n_{\mH} = 0.5$, that species with ionization
199: potentials lower than that of hydrogen were again fully ionized, and that
200: the fractional ionization of the other species was the same as that of hydrogen,
201: i.e.\ 50\%.
202:
203: In each case, we computed the cooling rate due to fine structure and/or
204: metastable transitions from each of the listed species for a large number of
205: temperatures in the interval $50 < T < 10000 \: {\rm K}$ and number
206: densities in the interval $0.001 < n < 100 \: {\rm cm^{-3}}$. In these calculations,
207: we assumed that the total metallicity of the gas was $0.1 \: {\rm Z_{\odot}}$, and
208: that the gas was optically thin in all of the relevant transitions. We also calculated
209: the contributions to the total cooling rate made by \hi Lyman-$\alpha$ emission
210: and Compton cooling; the rate of the latter was calculated for an assumed
211: redshift $z=20$.
212:
213: We used the results of our comparison to select the set of major coolants that
214: it was necessary to include in our thermal model by identifying all of the coolants
215: that contributed more than 25\% of the total cooling rate for any of the
216: combinations of temperature, density and ionization that we examined.
217: The resulting set consisted of $\mC$, $\cp$, $\mO$, $\sip$, Compton
218: cooling and Lyman-$\alpha$ cooling. Therefore, the only metals that we
219: include in our chemical and thermal model are carbon, oxygen and silicon.
220: The importance of carbon and oxygen is unsurprising -- they are well known
221: to play a major role in the cooling of the local atomic ISM \citep{WOL03},
222: and previous authors have also predicted that they will play a key role at
223: high redshift \citep[see e.g.][]{BRO01,BL03,SAN06,FJB07}. Silicon has
224: attracted less attention (although see \citealt{SAN06}), but $\sip$
225: proves to be the dominant coolant in highly ionized gas with $700 \simless
226: T \simless 7000 \: {\rm K}$ at $n > 0.3 \: {\rm cm^{-3}}$. Although gas with
227: the very high fractional ionization assumed here will recombine quickly
228: at temperatures $T < 10^{4} \: {\rm K}$, it nevertheless
229: seems prudent to include silicon in our model. Moreover, since it is necessary
230: to include neutral silicon in our chemical model if we are to calculate the
231: $\sip$ abundance accurately, it requires little extra effort to include the effects
232: of fine-structure cooling from \siI.
233:
234: Our choice of a 25\% cutoff in this analysis is somewhat arbitrary. If we were
235: to decrease the size of this cutoff, we would find that the number of species
236: that must be included would increase, as both ${\rm Fe^{+}}$ and S are
237: important coolants at the 10--20\% level in portions of our parameter space.
238: However, as the cooling rates of the dominant coolants often have
239: uncertainties that are comparable to or larger than the size of the
240: contributions from these minor coolants, the accuracy we would gain by
241: including them is less than might be expected, and does not (in our opinion)
242: justify the additional complexity and computational expense that would be
243: required in order to treat them.
244:
245: Finally, it is clear that our conclusions here are sensitive to our choice of
246: elemental abundance ratios. For instance, an increase in the iron abundance
247: (relative to the other metals) of 1--2 orders of magnitude would render
248: Fe and ${\rm Fe^{+}}$ important coolants in portions of our parameter
249: space, necessitating their inclusion in our model. Such an increase
250: would be expected if the enrichment of the gas were dominated by
251: pair-instability supernovae with masses close to the top end of the
252: 140--$260 \: {\rm M_{\odot}}$ allowed mass range \citep{hw02}.
253: However, studies of the abundance ratios found in extremely
254: metal-poor stars in the Galactic halo, which at present give us the
255: best picture available of the elemental composition of very metal-poor
256: gas, do not find evidence for significant enrichment by pair-instability
257: supernovae \citep[see e.g.\ the discussion in][]{tvs04} and so at the present
258: time there is no compelling reason to include iron in our chemical model.
259:
260: Our chemical model therefore consists of the eight coolants discussed above
261: -- $\mH$, $\mHt$, $\hd$, $\mC$, $\cp$, $\mO$, $\mSi$ and $\sip$ -- together
262: with ten additional species that play key roles in determining one or more of
263: the abundances of the coolants: $\me$, $\Hp$, $\Hm$, $\mHtp$, $\He$,
264: $\Hep$, $\mD$, $\Dp$, $\op$ and $\sipp$. Our rationale for including $\He$
265: and $\Hep$ in our model is that in the presence of a significant flux of
266: hard UV photons, X-rays or cosmic rays, ionized helium can act as an
267: important source of free electrons, and moreover can transfer charge
268: to neutral carbon or silicon (but not oxygen) far more effectively than
269: $\Hp$ can.
270:
271: We do not include minor primordial coolants such as ${\rm LiH}$ or ${\rm H_{3}^{+}}$.
272: These are never important at low densities and rarely important at high densities
273: (see \citealt{mon05}, \citealt{GS06,GS07}). More significantly, we do not
274: include molecular coolants such as CO or ${\rm H_{2}O}$, assuming instead
275: that the bulk of the carbon and oxygen in the gas remains in atomic or ionized form.
276: This assumption dramatically simplifies the chemical modelling of the gas, but at
277: the same time restricts the range of physical conditions over which the resulting
278: model is useful.
279:
280: To assess the conditions for which this approximation is justified, we need to
281: know two things. First, what fraction of the available carbon and oxygen must
282: be locked up in CO or ${\rm H_{2}O}$ in order for cooling from these
283: molecules to dominate over fine structure cooling? Second, under what
284: conditions are these fractions achievable within a dynamically interesting
285: timescale? To answer the first of these questions, we have performed
286: calculations using the treatment of carbon and oxygen fine structure cooling
287: discussed in \S\ref{fscool} below, together with a table-based treatment of CO and
288: ${\rm H_{2}O}$ taken from \citet{nk93} and \citet{nlm95}. We have computed
289: $f_{\rm mol}$, defined as
290: \begin{equation}
291: f_{\rm mol} = \frac{\Lambda_{\rm CO} + \Lambda_{\rm H_{2}O}}{\Lambda_{\cp}
292: + \Lambda_{\mC} + \Lambda_{\mO}}, \label{fmol_eq}
293: \end{equation}
294: where $\Lambda_{i}$ is the cooling rate per unit volume due to species $i$,
295: for a wide range of temperatures and densities. We assume that
296: $n_{\mH} \gg \rm{max}(n_{\mHt}, n_{\rm e})$ and that all of the cooling occurs
297: in the optically thin regime. We adopt a nominal redshift $z=20$ and consider
298: only temperatures $T > T_{\rm CMB}(z) = 57.2 \: {\rm K}$, under the
299: assumption that heating from the CMB will prevent the gas from cooling
300: appreciably below this temperature. In Figure~\ref{fmol}, we show how
301: $f_{\rm mol}$ varies as a function of temperature and density.
302:
303: Figure~\ref{fmol} demonstrates that over most of the parameter space that we
304: have examined, $f_{\rm mol}$ is of order unity. We find that $f_{\rm mol} > 10$
305: only for temperatures very close to the CMB temperature (which is likely an
306: numerical artifact, a result of the fact that our treatment
307: of fine structure cooling includes the effects of radiative pumping by the CMB,
308: while our treatment of CO and ${\rm H_{2}O}$ cooling does not), and at high
309: densities, where the level populations of the fine structure coolants start to
310: reach their local thermodynamic equilibrium values, causing the fine structure
311: cooling rate per atom to saturate. For CO or ${\rm H_{2}O}$
312: cooling to be effective, we therefore require that about as many carbon and
313: oxygen atoms be incorporated into molecules as remain in atomic form.
314:
315: \begin{figure}[Htb]
316: \centering
317: \epsfig{figure=f1.eps,width=20pc, angle=-90}
318: \caption{Value of $f_{\rm mol}$ (see Equation~\ref{fmol_eq}) as a function of
319: temperature and density. Contours corresponding to $f_{\rm mol} = 0.55$
320: ({\it dotted}), 1.0 ({\it dot-dashed}), 3.0 ({\it dashed}) and 10.0 ({\it solid}) are
321: plotted. We see that $f_{\rm mol} < 10$ for almost the whole of the parameter
322: space considered. \label{fmol}}
323: \end{figure}
324:
325: With these values of $f_{\rm mol}$ in hand, we can now turn to the question of
326: whether it is possible to produce enough CO and ${\rm H_{2}O}$ in the gas
327: within an interesting timescale. Since we require a significant amount of oxygen
328: to be in the form of coolant molecules, the timescale of interest, $t_{\rm conv}$,
329: is given approximately by
330: \begin{equation}
331: t_{\rm conv} \simeq \frac{n_{\mO}}{R_{\rm f}}
332: \end{equation}
333: where $R_{\rm f}$ is the net rate of formation of coolants per unit volume.
334: Therefore, to estimate $t_{\rm conv}$ we must first estimate $R_{\rm f}$.
335:
336: Although a complete discussion of the formation and destruction mechanisms
337: of CO and ${\rm H_{2}O}$ in low metallicity gas is beyond the scope of this paper,
338: we will briefly summarize the most important points. In hot gas
339: ($T \simgreat 600 \: {\rm K}$), most CO and water molecules form via reaction pathways
340: initiated by the hydroxyl radical, OH \citep[see e.g.][]{HOL79,WAG87}.
341: This is formed by
342: \begin{equation}
343: \mO + \mHt \rightarrow {\rm OH} + \mH, \label{ohf1}
344: \end{equation}
345: but most is then destroyed by
346: \begin{equation}
347: \oh + \mH \rightarrow \mO + \mHt. \label{ohd1}
348: \end{equation}
349: However, a small fraction instead reacts to form other molecular species,
350: such as water or CO, e.g.\
351: \begin{eqnarray}
352: \oh + \mHt & \rightarrow & {\rm H_{2}O} + \mH, \label{ohd2} \\
353: \oh + \mC & \rightarrow & {\rm CO} + \mH. \label{ohd3}
354: \end{eqnarray}
355: The resulting ${\rm H_{2}O}$ and CO molecules can be destroyed by collisions
356: with atomic hydrogen:
357: \begin{eqnarray}
358: {\rm H_{2}O} + \mH & \rightarrow & \oh + \mHt, \label{water1} \\
359: {\rm CO} + \mH & \rightarrow & \mC + \oh. \label{cod1}
360: \end{eqnarray}
361: If, as will generally be the case in low-metallicity gas, $x_{\mHt} \simless 0.1$
362: (where $x_{\mHt}$ is the fractional abundance of $\mHt$ relative to the total number
363: of hydrogen nuclei), then the destruction of water by reaction~\ref{water1} is far more
364: effective than its formation by reaction~\ref{ohd2}, and water will never account
365: for more than a small fraction of the available oxygen. On the other hand,
366: the CO formed by reaction~\ref{ohd3} can potentially account for almost all of the
367: available oxygen or carbon -- whichever is present in the smaller amount -- as
368: the destruction of CO by reaction~\ref{cod1} is ineffective at $T < 5000 \: {\rm K}$.
369: Therefore, the net rate of formation of coolant molecules (primarily ${\rm CO}$)
370: is given approximately by
371: \begin{equation}
372: R_{\rm f} \simeq \frac{ k_{\ref{ohf1}} k_{\ref{ohd3}} x_{\mC}}{k_{\ref{ohd1}}
373: x_{\mH} + k_{\ref{ohd3}} x_{\mC}} n_{\mO} n_{\mHt} \: {\rm cm^{-3}} \: {\rm s^{-1}},
374: \end{equation}
375: where $k_{i}$ is the rate coefficient of reaction $i$, $x_{\mH}$ and $x_{\mC}$
376: are the fractional abundances of atomic hydrogen and atomic carbon, and
377: $n_{\mO}$ and $n_{\mHt}$ are the number densities of $\mO$ and $\mHt$
378: respectively. The timescale to convert significant quantities of oxygen to CO
379: is then given approximately by
380: \begin{eqnarray}
381: t_{\rm conv} & \simeq & \frac{n_{\mO}}{R_{\rm f}}, \\
382: & = & \frac{1}{n_{\mHt}} \frac{k_{\ref{ohd1}} x_{\mH} + k_{\ref{ohd3}} x_{\mC}}
383: { k_{\ref{ohf1}} k_{\ref{ohd3}} x_{\mC}}.
384: \end{eqnarray}
385: For $x_{\mHt} = 10^{-3}$, which is a reasonable value for low metallicity gas if
386: $\mHt$ formation on dust is unimportant, this gives a timescale of approximately
387: \begin{equation}
388: t_{\rm conv} \simeq \frac{100}{n} \frac{{\rm Z_{\odot}}}{{\rm Z}} \: {\rm Myr},
389: \end{equation}
390: where $n$ is the number density of hydrogen nuclei, and where we have
391: adopted the values for the various rate coefficients that are given in \citet{TEU00}.
392:
393: In cold gas, all of these reactions (except for reaction~\ref{ohd3}) are ineffective,
394: and other processes dominate the formation of water and CO. A good summary
395: of the relevant chemistry is given in \citet{BLA77}. When $x_{\op} x_{\mHt}
396: \simgreat 10^{-9} x_{\mO} x_{\mH}$,
397: the most important mechanism involves the formation of the $\oh^{+}$ ion via the rapid
398: ion-neutral reaction
399: \begin{equation}
400: \op + \mHt \rightarrow \oh^{+} + \mH. \label{ohpf}
401: \end{equation}
402: If $x_{\rm e} > 1.6 \times 10^{-3} T^{1/2} x_{\mHt}$, then most of the resulting $\oh^{+}$
403: ions simply dissociatively recombine:
404: \begin{equation}
405: \oh^{+} + \me \rightarrow \mO + \mH. \label{ohpdr}
406: \end{equation}
407: Otherwise, they can then react further with $\mHt$ to give
408: ${\rm H_{2}O^{+}}$ and ${\rm H_{3}O^{+}}$, with dissociative recombination
409: of the latter producing $\oh$ and water. CO formation follows through
410: reaction~\ref{ohd3}. All of these reactions occur rapidly, and so the
411: net rate of formation of coolant molecules is given by the rate of formation of
412: $\oh^{+}$ multiplied by the fraction of $\oh^{+}$ that is not destroyed by
413: dissociative recombination, (1 - $f_{\rm dr})$:
414: \begin{equation}
415: R_{\rm f} \simeq k_{\ref{ohpf}} (1.0 - f_{\rm dr}) n_{\op} n_{\mHt},
416: \end{equation}
417: For $x_{\rm e} = 1.6 \times 10^{-3} T^{1/2} x_{\mHt}$, we have $f_{\rm dr} = 0.5$,
418: and hence $R_{\rm f} = 0.5 k_{\ref{ohpf}} n_{\op} n_{\mHt}$. In that case,
419: the time required to convert most of the oxygen to $\oh^{+}$ and thence to other
420: molecules is
421: \begin{equation}
422: t_{\rm conv} \simeq \frac{1}{k_{\ref{ohpf}} x_{\mHt} x_{\Hp} n},
423: \end{equation}
424: where we have used the fact that $n_{\op}/n_{\mO} \simeq n_{\Hp}/n_{\mH}$
425: owing to the rapid transfer of charge between oxygen and hydrogen
426: (see \S\ref{metal_chem} below). If we assume that $x_{\rm e} \simeq x_{\Hp}$
427: and that $x_{\mHt} = 10^{-3}$, then this gives us a value for $t_{\rm conv}$ of
428: \begin{equation}
429: t_{\rm conv} \simeq \frac{1000}{n} \: {\rm Myr}.
430: \end{equation}
431: Decreasing the fractional ionization of the gas will increase $t_{\rm conv}$,
432: but increasing it will have no significant effect.
433:
434: Finally, if the fractional ionization of the gas is too low for reaction~\ref{ohpf}
435: to operate effectively, then the formation of coolant molecules again occurs
436: primarily via hydroxyl, which in this case is formed mainly by direct radiative
437: association \citep{JUL71,SMI76}
438: \begin{equation}
439: \mO + \mH \rightarrow \oh + \gamma. \label{ohra}
440: \end{equation}
441: In this case, $t_{\rm conv}$ is simply
442: \begin{eqnarray}
443: t_{\rm conv} & = & (k_{\ref{ohra}} n)^{-1}, \nonumber \\
444: & \simeq & \frac{40}{n} \: {\rm Gyr}.
445: \end{eqnarray}
446:
447: Comparing the three values of $t_{\rm conv}$ derived above, we see that
448: in gas with ${\rm Z} = 0.1 \: {\rm Z_{\odot}}$, $t_{\rm conv} \simeq 1000
449: n^{-1} \: {\rm Myr}$, regardless of the gas temperature, provided that
450: $x_{\mHt} \simeq 10^{-3}$ and that the fractional ionization satisfies
451: the constraint given above. If we compare this with the characteristic
452: physical timescale of the problem of interest, $t_{\rm char}$, then it is
453: simple to show that for densities
454: \begin{equation}
455: n \simless \frac{1000 \: {\rm Myr}}{t_{\rm char}} \: {\rm cm^{-3}},
456: \end{equation}
457: CO and ${\rm H_{2}O}$ will not form in quantities large enough to
458: dominate the cooling, and hence it is valid to ignore these molecules
459: and all of their associated chemistry. Note also that if we were to include
460: the effects of photodissociation of $\oh$, ${\rm H_{2}O}$ and CO in the
461: above analysis, then this would push the required density to an even
462: larger value.
463:
464: In a gravitationally collapsing protogalaxy, a reasonable value for
465: $t_{\rm char}$ is the gravitational free-fall timescale $t_{\rm ff}$, and
466: in this scenario, our neglect of the molecular chemistry is valid as
467: long as $n < 400 \: {\rm cm^{-3}}$. On the other hand, if we want
468: to simulate the thermal evolution of the interstellar medium in a metal-poor dwarf
469: galaxy, a more reasonable timescale may be the sound-crossing
470: time of the disk, which is of order $100 \: {\rm Myr}$ for a
471: $1 \: {\rm kpc}$ disk and a sound speed of $10 \: {\rm km} \:
472: {\rm s^{-1}}$. In this case, our model is valid only for
473: $n < 10 \: {\rm cm^{-3}}$.
474:
475: As a consistency check on our conclusions here, we examined the results
476: of \citet{OMU05}, who model the thermal and chemical evolution of
477: freely-falling gas at a range of metallicities far below solar, using a detailed
478: treatment of the gas chemistry. They find that for $Z = 0.01 \: {\rm Z_{\odot}}$,
479: significant conversion of carbon and oxygen to molecular form does not
480: occur until $n > 10^{3} \: {\rm cm^{-3}}$, in line with the value derived here.
481: At lower metallicities, an even higher gas density is required. As another
482: check, we have computed the evolution of the ${\rm CO}$ and ${\rm H_{2}O}$
483: abundances in the gas at the center of several of the simulated
484: protogalactic halos discussed in \citeauthor{jgkm07}~(2007; hereafter paper II),
485: using values for the density, temperature, $\mHt$ abundance and $\Hp$ abundance
486: taken from our simulations, and modelling the chemistry with the full UMIST99 chemical
487: network \citep{TEU00}. We find that in most of these runs, our neglect of
488: the molecular coolants is justified, as their abundances never become large
489: enough for them to significantly affect the cooling. Our approximation begins
490: to break down in the runs with ${\rm Z} = 0.1 \: {\rm Z_{\odot}}$, where about
491: 10\%--20\% of the total carbon and oxygen are incorporated into CO and
492: ${\rm H_{2}O}$, which is just enough to affect the cooling at high temperatures
493: and/or high densities. However, only in our runs with ${\rm Z} = {\rm Z_{\odot}}$
494: does it break down completely. Therefore, the use of our highly simplified
495: chemical model would appear to be justified in low-density gas with
496: ${\rm Z} \leq 0.1 \: {\rm Z_{\odot}}$.
497:
498: We are thus left with a set of eighteen chemical species that must be modelled:
499: $\me$, $\Hp$, $\mH$, $\Hm$, $\mHtp$, $\mHt$, $\Dp$, $\mD$, $\hd$, $\He$,
500: $\Hep$, $\mC$, $\cp$, $\mO$, $\op$, $\mSi$, $\sip$ and $\sipp$.
501: The combined evolution of the abundances of these
502: species is described by a chemical network consisting of 74 reactions:
503: 47 collisional gas-phase reactions (summarized in Table~\ref{tab:chem_gas_coll}),
504: 12 photochemical gas-phase reactions (summarized in Table~\ref{tab:chem_gas_photo}),
505: 7 grain surface reactions (summarized in Table~\ref{tab:chem_grain}), and
506: 8 reactions involving cosmic rays (summarized in Table~\ref{tab:cosmic}). The
507: abundances of these species are also constrained by seven conservation laws:
508: \begin{eqnarray}
509: x_{\Hp} + x_{\mHtp} + x_{\Dp} + x_{\Hep} + x_{\cp} + x_{\op} + x_{\sip} + x_{\sipp}&
510: = & x_{\rm e} + x_{\Hm}, \label{chg_cons} \\
511: x_{\Hp} + x_{\mH} + x_{\Hm} + 2 x_{\mHtp} + 2 x_{\mHt} + x_{\hd} & = & 1, \\
512: x_{\Dp} + x_{\mD} + x_{\hd} & = & x_{\rm D, \, tot}, \\
513: x_{\Hep} + x_{\He} & = & x_{\rm He, \, tot}, \\
514: x_{\mC} + x_{\cp} & = & x_{\rm C, \, tot}, \\
515: x_{\mO} + x_{\op} & = & x_{\rm O, \, tot}, \\
516: x_{\mSi} + x_{\sip} + 2 x_{\sipp} & = & x_{\rm Si, \, tot} \label{si_cons}
517: \end{eqnarray}
518: where $x_{i}$ is the fractional abundance of chemical species $i$ relative to the total
519: abundance of hydrogen nuclei, and where $ x_{\rm D, \, tot}$, $x_{\rm He, \, tot}$,
520: $x_{\rm C, \, tot}$, $x_{\rm O, \, tot}$, and $x_{\rm Si, \, tot}$ are the total abundances of
521: deuterium, helium, carbon, oxygen and silicon, respectively. Furthermore, we assume
522: in our modelling that $\Hm$ and $\mHtp$ are in chemical equilibrium, allowing us to write
523: their abundances as:
524: \begin{equation}
525: x_{\Hm} = \frac{k_{1} x_{\mH} x_{\rm e} n}{(k_{2} x_{\mH} + k_{5} x_{\Hp} + k_{15} x_{\rm e}
526: + k_{16} x_{\mH} + k_{17} x_{\Hp}) n + R_{51}},
527: \end{equation}
528: and
529: \begin{equation}
530: x_{\mHtp} = \frac{(k_{3} x_{\mH} x_{\Hp} + k_{7} x_{\mHt} x_{\Hp} + k_{17} x_{\Hm} x_{\Hp})n + \zeta_{\mHt} x_{\mHt}
531: + R_{54} x_{\mHt}}{(k_{4} x_{\mH} + k_{6} x_{\rm e}) n + R_{52}}, \label{eq_h2p}
532: \end{equation}
533: where $n$ is the number density of hydrogen nuclei. This assumption is generally
534: justified in simulations of the cooling and gravitational collapse of gas in protogalactic
535: halos, as the timescales on which $\Hm$ and $\mHtp$ reach chemical equilibrium
536: are much shorter than the cooling or free-fall timescale. (For a more detailed discussion
537: of this point, see \citealt{GLO06}).
538:
539: The constraints represented by equations~\ref{chg_cons}--\ref{eq_h2p} allow us to
540: reduce the total number of chemical rate equations that must be solved to only nine.
541: In practice, we generally choose to solve for the abundances of the ionized species
542: ($\Hp$, $\Dp$, $\Hep$, $\cp$, $\op$, $\sip$, $\sipp$), $\mHt$ and $\hd$, but alternative
543: choices are possible and would not significantly alter the results obtained.
544:
545: \subsection{Selection of reactions}
546: \label{react_select}
547: The number of chemical reactions that could be included in our chemical network is
548: very large, despite the limited number of chemical species involved. Fortunately,
549: many of these reactions have little or no impact on the evolution of the abundances
550: of our main coolants and so the number of reactions that need to be included in our
551: chemical network remains reasonably small.
552:
553: We can divide the reactions that must be included into two subsets. The first
554: subset consists of the reactions required to model the chemistry of hydrogen,
555: helium and deuterium, including the formation and destruction of $\mHt$
556: and $\hd$ (reactions 1--29, 48--55, 60--63, 67--70). The second subset consists of
557: the reactions required to model the carbon, oxygen and silicon chemistry
558: (reactions 30--47, 56--59, 64--66, 71--74).
559:
560: \subsubsection{Hydrogen, helium and deuterium chemistry}
561: The amount of $\Hp$ present in the gas is controlled by seven main reactions:
562: collisional ionization of $\mH$ by electrons (reaction 11), charge transfer
563: with helium (reactions 26 \& 27), photoionization (reaction 48), cosmic ray
564: ionization (reaction 67), gas-phase
565: recombination (reaction 13) and recombination on the surface of dust
566: grains (reaction 61). Similar reactions (nos.\ 12, 28, 29, 49, 68, 14 \& 62) partially
567: determine the $\Dp$ abundance, but in this case, charge transfer to and from
568: hydrogen (reactions 18 \& 19) is also of great importance, owing to the very
569: large abundance of hydrogen relative to deuterium. Finally, the $\Hep$
570: abundance is controlled primarily by collisional ionization (reaction 24),
571: photoionization (reaction 50), cosmic ray ionization (reaction 69),
572: gas-phase and grain-surface recombination (reactions 25 \& 63) and charge
573: transfer with hydrogen (reactions 26 \& 27).
574:
575: The remaining 24 reactions in this subset control the formation and
576: destruction of $\mHt$ and $\hd$. $\mHt$ forms in the gas phase via the
577: intermediate ions $\Hm$ and $\mHtp$ (reactions 2 \& 4), as well as on the
578: surface of dust grains (reaction 60). It is destroyed by collisions with $\Hp$,
579: $\me$, $\mH$ and $\mHt$ (reactions 7--10), and can also be photodissociated
580: or photoionized by UV radiation (reactions 53 \& 54), or ionized by cosmic rays
581: (reaction 70). Collisions with
582: $\He$ \citep{drcm87}
583: \begin{equation}
584: \mHt + \He \rightarrow \mH + \mH + \He,
585: \end{equation}
586: and $\Hep$ \citep{ba84}
587: \begin{eqnarray}
588: \mHt + \Hep & \rightarrow & \mH + \Hp + \He, \\
589: & \rightarrow & \mHtp + \He,
590: \end{eqnarray}
591: can also destroy $\mHt$, but in general these processes are not as effective
592: as collisions with hydrogen, and so they can be omitted from our simplified
593: chemical model without significantly affecting its accuracy.
594:
595: The $\Hm$ and $\mHtp$ ions required for gas-phase $\mHt$ formation are
596: formed primarily by the radiative association of atomic hydrogen with
597: free electrons or protons respectively (reactions 1 \& 3), and while
598: reactions 2 \& 4 generally dominate the removal of $\Hm$ and $\mHtp$
599: from the gas, in hot or highly ionized gas a number of other processes
600: become competitive (reactions 5, 6 \& 15-17) Photodissocation of $\Hm$
601: and $\mHtp$ (reactions 51 \& 52) can also become important if the incident
602: radiation field is strong.
603:
604: Finally, although $\hd$ can form from intermediate ions such as ${\rm D}^{-}$ or
605: ${\rm HD^{+}}$ in a manner analogous to $\mHt$ \citep[see e.g.][]{sld98}, most
606: actually forms from $\mHt$ via reaction 20:
607: \begin{equation}
608: \mHt + \Dp \rightarrow \hd + \Hp.
609: \end{equation}
610: The resulting $\hd$ can be destroyed by the inverse of this reaction
611: (reaction 21), or by photodissociation (reaction 55). In hot gas, the
612: $\hd$ abundance is also influenced by reactions between $\mHt$ and
613: $\mD$ and $\hd$ and $\mH$ (nos.\ 22 \& 23 respectively). Note that with the
614: exception of the grain surface reactions (which are discussed in
615: \S\ref{surface_chem} below), the reactions required to model the
616: hydrogen, helium and deuterium chemistry accurately in metal-enriched
617: gas are just the same as those required to model primordial gas.
618:
619: The values for many of these rate coefficients are known to within a small
620: amount of uncertainty at the temperatures and densities of interest, and so
621: our choice of the particular values used here should be uncontroversial.
622: However, a few of our assumptions demand further comment.
623:
624: First, we note that the rates listed for reactions involving $\mHt$ or $\hd$
625: as a reactant generally assume that these molecules are not vibrationally
626: excited. This assumption is reasonable at the low densities treated here,
627: but breaks down at densities $n \simgreat 10^{4} \: {\rm cm^{-3}}$.
628:
629: Second, we note that for several reactions involving deuterium where no
630: readily available rate coefficient exists in the astrophysical literature, we
631: have assumed that the rate is the same as for the analogous reaction
632: involving $\mH$ or $\Hp$.
633:
634: The rates of processes involving cosmic rays (see Table~\ref{tab:cosmic})
635: depend on the energy spectrum and energy density of cosmic rays.
636: These are poorly known at the relevant energies even in the local ISM,
637: and far less is known concerning high-redshift cosmic rays. For this
638: reason, we do not give absolute values for these rates, but instead
639: parameterize them in terms of the cosmic ray ionization rate for atomic
640: hydrogen, $\zeta_{\rm H}$, which can then be considered an adjustable
641: parameter of the model.
642:
643: Finally, we note that two of the reactions that regulate the $\Hm$ abundance
644: have large uncertainties in their rate coefficients. The reactions in question
645: are the associative detachment of $\Hm$ with $\mH$ (reaction 2) and the
646: mutual neutralization of $\Hm$ with $\Hp$ (reaction 5). As discussed in
647: \citet{GLO06}, the uncertainties in the rates of both of these reactions may
648: be as large as an order of magnitude. In gas with a high fractional
649: ionization, this uncertainty can lead to a significant uncertainty in the $\mHt$
650: formation rate and in the final $\mHt$ fractional abundance, particularly
651: in the presence of a strong ultraviolet background radiation field. In the
652: chemical model presented here, we have followed \citet{GP98} and have
653: adopted a rate coefficient for reaction 2 taken from \citet{LAU91} and a rate
654: coefficient for reaction 5 taken from \citet{MOS70}. However, we caution the
655: reader that this should not be regarded as an endorsement of the accuracy
656: of these particular values.
657:
658: \subsubsection{Carbon, oxygen and silicon chemistry}
659: \label{metal_chem}
660: As discussed in \S\ref{chem_choice} above, we do not include the molecular
661: chemistry of these elements in this simplified model. Our treatment of the carbon,
662: oxygen and silicon chemistry is therefore purely a treatment of the charge balance
663: of these species.
664:
665: We begin with oxygen, in many respects the simplest of the three to treat. The
666: ionization potential of neutral oxygen is only 0.02~eV larger than that of neutral
667: hydrogen, and so charge transfer between $\op$ and $\mH$ or $\Hp$ and $\mO$
668: (reactions 36 \& 37) occurs rapidly. Since the hydrogen abundance is orders of
669: magnitude larger than the oxygen abundance, this means that the ratio of ionized to
670: neutral oxygen is controlled by the ratio of ionized to neutral hydrogen,
671: i.e.\ that
672: \begin{equation}
673: \frac{x_{\op}}{x_{\mO}} \simeq \frac{k_{37}}{k_{36}} \frac{x_{\Hp}}{x_{\mH}}.
674: \end{equation}
675: In most circumstances, reactions 36 \& 37 are the only reactions required in order
676: to accurately model the oxygen chemistry. Nevertheless, for completeness we
677: also include several other processes: radiative recombination (reaction 32),
678: grain surface recombination (reaction 65), collisional ionization (reaction 35),
679: charge transfer with $\Hep$ (reaction 38), photoionization (reaction 57) and
680: cosmic ray ionization (reaction 72).
681:
682: In the case of carbon, the situation is rather different. First, charge transfer
683: from $\Hp$ to $\mC$ (reaction 39) is much less effective than charge transfer from
684: $\Hp$ to $\mO$, and so reaction 39 plays a far less important role in the carbon
685: chemistry than reaction 37 does in the oxygen chemistry. Second, carbon has an
686: ionization potential of only 11.26~eV. This means that charge transfer from $\cp$
687: to $\mH$ is significantly endothermic, rendering it unimportant at $T < 10^{4} \: {\rm K}$
688: (although we include it here for completeness). It also means that neutral carbon
689: can be photoionized by ultraviolet photons with wavelengths $\lambda > 912$~\AA,
690: which can penetrate easily into low metallicity protogalactic gas. Consequently,
691: photoionization of $\mC$ (reaction 56) plays an important role in the carbon chemistry,
692: whereas photoionization of $\op$ is unimportant outside of $\hii$ regions. In addition to
693: charge transfer and photoionization, ionized carbon can also be produced by collisional
694: ionization (reaction 33), although this is important only for temperatures
695: $T > 9000 \: {\rm K}$, by charge transfer with $\Hep$ (reaction 41) and by cosmic ray
696: ionization (reaction 71). $\cp$ is removed
697: from the gas primarily by recombination in the gas phase (reaction 30) and on grain
698: surfaces (reaction 64), although if the free electron abundance is small, charge transfer
699: from $\cp$ to $\mSi$ (reaction 44) can also become important.
700:
701: In the case of silicon, a similar set of processes operate: collisional ionization (reaction
702: 34), cosmic ray ionization (reaction 73), gas-phase recombination (reaction 31),
703: grain surface recombination (reaction 66),
704: charge transfer from $\Hp$, $\Hep$ or $\cp$ to $\mSi$ (reactions 42, 43 \& 44), and
705: photoionization by an ultraviolet radiation field (reaction 58), assuming one is present.
706: In the case of silicon, however, we also include the doubly ionized ion, $\sipp$, in our
707: chemical model, since this can be produced by charge transfer from $\Hp$ to $\sip$
708: (reaction 45) with an endothermicity of only a few eV, rendering it potentially important
709: at temperatures $\sim 10^{4} \: {\rm K}$. It can also be produced by photoionization
710: (reaction 59), although in this case the 16.35~eV energy requirement renders this process
711: important only within \hii regions, or by cosmic ray ionization (reaction 74).
712: The $\sipp$ produced by these processes can be destroyed by charge transfer with
713: neutral hydrogen (reaction 46), or by recombination (reaction 47).
714:
715: Regarding the accuracy of our adopted reaction rates, we note that while
716: many have well determined rate coefficients, there are two notable exceptions.
717: The only available rate coefficients for reactions 43 and 44, which involve the
718: transfer of charge from $\Hep$ to $\mSi$ and from $\cp$ to $\mSi$ respectively,
719: assume that the reactions both proceed at the Langevin
720: rate. In practice, highly exothermic charge transfer reactions often
721: proceed at a rate far below the simple Langevin rate, and so the rates
722: of these reactions may be overestimated in our model.
723:
724: \subsection{Grain surface chemistry}
725: \label{surface_chem}
726: If dust grains are present in the metal-enriched gas, then our chemical model must
727: account for the effects of reactions occurring on the surface of the grains, as these
728: reactions are often far more effective than their gas-phase counterparts. We therefore
729: include a small number of grain surface reactions in our model, as summarized in
730: Table~\ref{tab:chem_grain}.
731:
732: The only grain surface reaction between neutral species that is included in our model
733: is the formation of molecular hydrogen (reaction 60). This is a hugely important reaction
734: in the local interstellar medium, since at typical interstellar densities it is the only process
735: capable of producing the large quantities of molecular hydrogen that are directly observed
736: \citep[see e.g.][]{WAK06} or inferred from other molecular tracers, such as CO. Theoretical
737: modeling \citep{HIR02,GLO03,CAZ04} suggests that it remains important down to metallicities
738: of order $10^{-3} \: {\rm Z_{\odot}}$, within the range of applicability for the chemical model
739: presented here.
740:
741: The rate that we adopt for this process is based on the widely used rate of \citet{HOL79}.
742: This was derived for solar metallicity gas, assuming a distribution of grain sizes as given
743: in \citet{MAT77}, and to adapt it for use in low metallicity gas, we simply assume that
744: the rate scales linearly with the metallicity ${\rm Z}$. The validity of this assumption is
745: open to question, as many of the features of the grain population, such as the grain size
746: distribution or the mix of compositions, may differ greatly between Milky Way dust and
747: protogalactic dust. An alternative, physically motivated approach would be to adopt a
748: grain size distribution and mix of compositions based on the results of numerical modeling
749: of dust formation in high redshift supernovae \citep{TOD01,NOZ03,SCH04}
750: and then to compute the $\mHt$ formation rate expected for this grain population. This is
751: the approach used by \citet{SCH06}.
752: However, the uncertainties associated with this approach are considerable. To begin
753: with, the predictions of the numerical models are highly sensitive to the degree of
754: mixing assumed to occur within the supernova ejecta \citep{NOZ03}. In addition, dust
755: destruction in the reverse shock is typically not taken into account in these models,
756: and to the best of our knowledge, the amount of dust that survives the passage of the
757: shock has yet to be fully quantified (although research in this area is actively
758: proceeding; R. Schneider, priv.\ comm.). Finally, the changes wrought on the grain
759: population by subsequent processing in the interstellar medium or intergalactic medium
760: \citep[see e.g.][]{VEN06} are not fully understood. In light of these uncertainties,
761: we do not believe that this approach currently offers much of an advantage over our
762: simple assumption of an $\mHt$ formation rate that scales with metallicity.
763:
764: We do not include any neutral-neutral surface reactions in our model other than
765: $\mHt$ formation. For neutral-neutral surface reactions to be able to significantly
766: affect the ability of the gas to cool, they must be able to alter the abundances of
767: neutral carbon, oxygen or silicon by a substantial amount. We can place an upper
768: limit on the rate at which these reactions occur if we assume that the reaction
769: probability $f_{\rm react} = 1$, i.e.\ that every collision between a metal atom and
770: a grain results in a reaction. In that case, the reaction rate per unit volume for an
771: atomic species $i$ is given by
772: \begin{equation}
773: R_{\rm i} = v_{{\rm th}, i} A n_{\rm i}, \label{grain_rate}
774: \end{equation}
775: where $v_{{\rm th}, i}$ is the thermal velocity of atomic species $i$, and $A$ is the
776: total surface area of grains per unit volume of gas. For Milky Way dust of the
777: type assumed by \citet{HOL79}, $A \simeq 3 \times 10^{-21} n \: {\rm cm^{-1}}$,
778: where $n$ is the number density of hydrogen nuclei. At lower metallicity, our
779: assumption that the grain size distribution does not change with metallicity
780: implies that the value of $A$ in gas with a metallicity $Z$ is simply
781: $A \simeq 3 \times 10^{-21} ({\rm Z} / {\rm Z_{\odot}}) n \: {\rm cm^{-1}}$.
782: We can therefore rewrite equation~\ref{grain_rate} as
783: \begin{equation}
784: R_{\rm i} \simeq 4.7 \times 10^{-17} \left(\frac{T}{m_{i}}\right)^{1/2}
785: \left(\frac{\rm Z}{\rm Z_{\odot}}\right) n \, n_{\rm i}, \label{gr2}
786: \end{equation}
787: where $m_{i}$ is the mass of species $i$ in atomic mass units. The
788: corresponding conversion timescale $t_{\rm conv} = n_{\rm i} / R_{\rm i}$ is then
789: \begin{equation}
790: t_{\rm conv} = 2.1 \times 10^{16} n^{-1} \left(\frac{T}{m_{i}}\right)^{-1/2}
791: \left(\frac{\rm Z}{\rm Z_{\odot}}\right)^{-1} \: {\rm s}.
792: \end{equation}
793: If $f_{\rm react} < 1$, then this expression becomes:
794: \begin{equation}
795: t_{\rm conv} = 2.1 \times 10^{16} f_{\rm react}^{-1} n^{-1} \left(\frac{T}{m_{i}}\right)^{-1/2}
796: \left(\frac{\rm Z}{\rm Z_{\odot}}\right)^{-1} \: {\rm s}.
797: \end{equation}
798: If we equate this to a characteristic physical timescale $t_{\rm char}$, then we
799: can show that $t_{\rm conv} > t_{\rm char}$ as long as
800: \begin{equation}
801: n < 665 \left(\frac{1 \: {\rm Myr}}{t_{\rm char}} \right) f_{\rm react}^{-1}
802: \left(\frac{T}{m_{i}}\right)^{-1/2} \left(\frac{\rm Z}{\rm Z_{\odot}}\right)^{-1}
803: \: {\rm cm^{-3}}.
804: \end{equation}
805: For gas with a temperature $T = 2000 \: {\rm K}$ and metallicity
806: ${\rm Z} = 0.1 \: {\rm Z_{\odot}}$, and with atomic carbon as the
807: colliding species, this gives:
808: \begin{equation}
809: n < \frac{500 f_{\rm react}^{-1} \: {\rm Myr}}{t_{\rm char}} \: {\rm cm^{-3}}.
810: \end{equation}
811: At higher temperatures, the limiting $n$ will be slightly smaller, but
812: at $T > 2000 \: {\rm K}$, collisional dissociation of most molecular
813: species is highly effective, and so in this temperature regime, grain
814: surface reactions are unlikely to be important.
815:
816: From this analysis, we see that even if $f_{\rm react} = 1$, neutral-neutral grain
817: surface reactions are unimportant at gas densities $n < (500 \: {\rm Myr} /
818: t_{\rm char}) ({\rm Z} / 0.1 \: {\rm Z_{\odot}})^{-1} \: {\rm cm^{-3}}$. In gravitationally
819: collapsing gas with $t_{\rm char} = t_{\rm ff}$, this corresponds to
820: $n \simless 100 ({\rm Z} / 0.1 \: {\rm Z_{\odot}})^{-1} \: {\rm cm^{-3}}$. Note that a key
821: point here is that for neutral-neutral grain surface reactions involving our atomic
822: coolants (C, O etc.) to significantly affect the thermal behaviour of the gas, a large
823: fraction of the total number of coolant atoms must react, whereas for grain surface
824: reactions to affect the $\mHt$ cooling rate by significantly altering the $\mHt$
825: abundance, only a small fraction of the total number of hydrogen atoms must
826: react. This means that in the case of $\mHt$, the relevant conversion timescale
827: is several orders of magnitude shorter, and hence our density limit would be
828: significantly smaller if we were to omit grain surface $\mHt$ formation from our
829: model.
830:
831: One way in which this simple analysis could break down is if $f_{\rm react}$ were
832: much larger for reactions involving the coolant atoms than for $\mHt$ formation.
833: However, a recent analysis of $\mHt$ formation on grain surfaces by \citet{ct04}
834: that takes both physisorbed (i.e.\ van der Waals bonded) and chemisorbed (i.e.\
835: chemically bonded) hydrogen into account demonstrates that in the conditions
836: of interest in this paper, $f_{\rm react} \sim 1$ (with the result that the computed
837: $\mHt$ formation rate is very similar to the widely-used rate of \citet{HOL79} that
838: is used in our model). A comparable analysis has not been performed for
839: reactions involving C, O or Si, but clearly they cannot have $f_{\rm react} > 1$,
840: and so there is little scope for these reactions to occur significantly faster than
841: $\mHt$ formation.
842:
843: Finally, we include in our surface chemistry model six important reactions involving
844: ions: the recombination of $\Hp$, $\Dp$, $\Hep$, $\cp$, $\op$ and $\sip$ with electrons
845: on the surface of grains. As grain surface recombination is a non-radiative process, it
846: proceeds at a much faster rate than radiative recombination in the gas phase. Moreover,
847: if a typical grain is negatively charged, then the effective cross-section for collisions will
848: be much enhanced over the geometric cross-section due to Coloumb focussing. Grain
849: charging is largely determined by the parameter \citep{BAK94}
850: \begin{equation}
851: \psi = \frac{G \sqrt{T}}{n_{\rm e}},
852: \end{equation}
853: where $G \simeq 0.01 J_{21}$ is a measure of the radiation energy density between
854: $6 \: {\rm eV}$ and $13.6 \: {\rm eV}$ relative to the \citet{habing68} field. When
855: $\psi$ is small, most grains are negatively charged, and so in these conditions grain
856: surface recombination can be important even if neutral-neutral grain surface reactions
857: are unimportant.
858:
859: To model grain surface recombination, we follow \citet{WEI01a}. We adopt their
860: rate coefficients for the recombination of $\Hp$, $\Hep$, $\cp$ and $\sip$. For
861: $\op$ and $\Dp$, we use the facts that $\op$ and $\Dp$ have almost the same
862: ionization potential as $\Hp$ and that the ion arrival rate at the grain scales as
863: $m_{i}^{-1/2}$ (where $m_{i}$ is the mass of the ion in atomic mass units) to derive rates by
864: appropriately scaling the $\Hp$ rate. The \citeauthor{WEI01a} rates were all
865: computed for Milky Way dust, and to adapt them for use in low metallicity
866: gas, we again assume that they scale linearly with ${\rm Z}$, with the same
867: caveats as before.
868:
869: \subsection{Photochemical rates}
870: \label{photochem}
871: In Table~\ref{tab:chem_gas_photo}, we list the cross-sections for all but two
872: of the photochemical reactions included in our model. The two exceptions
873: are $\mHt$ photodissociation and $\hd$ photodissociation, which are
874: caused by absorption in a large number of discrete spectral lines, and which are
875: discussed separately in \S\ref{h2_photodiss} below.
876:
877: Given the cross-section, $\sigma(E)$, the corresponding photochemical rate can be obtained
878: from
879: \begin{equation}
880: R_{\rm photo} = 4\pi \int_{E_{0}}^{\infty} \frac{\sigma(E) I(E)}{E} e^{-\tau(E)}
881: \left[1 + f(E)\right] {\rm d}E
882: \end{equation}
883: where $E$ is the photon energy, $E_{0}$ is the energy threshold,
884: $I(E)$ and $\tau(E)$ are the mean intensity (in units of ${\rm eV} \: {\rm s^{-1}} \:
885: {\rm cm^{-2}} \: {\rm eV^{-1}} \: {\rm sr^{-1}}$) and optical depth
886: for a photon of energy $E$ (both of which are problem dependent), and
887: where $f(E)$ is a factor that accounts for the effects of secondary ionizations. It is
888: generally a reasonable approximation to set $f(E) = 0$ unless the ionizing component
889: of the radiation field is dominated by X-rays \citep{ABE97,GB03}. In the case that X-rays
890: dominate, fits for $f(E)$ for $\mH$ and $\He$ photoionization as a function of the fractional
891: ionization of the gas can be found in \citet{svs85} and \citet{dyl99}. The effects of secondary
892: ionizations on the other processes listed here are generally negligible, owing
893: to the large abundances of neutral $\mH$ and $\He$ relative to all other species.
894:
895: If the gas is optically thick at the $\He$ photoionization threshold, then an additional
896: process that must be taken into account is the photoionization of $\mH$ by the
897: diffuse emission produced by $\Hep$ recombination. In the limit of high optical
898: depth, the on-the-spot approximation applies, and we can model this process as
899: a local ionization rate with a value \citep{os89}
900: \begin{equation}
901: R_{\rm pi} = \left[yk_{25, {\rm rr, A}} + (0.96-y) k_{25, {\rm rr, B}} + k_{25, {\rm di}} \right]
902: n_{\rm e} n_{\Hep} \: {\rm cm^{-3}} \: {\rm s^{-1}},
903: \end{equation}
904: where $y$ is given by
905: \begin{equation}
906: y = \frac{n_{\mH} \sigma_{48}(E_{\rm th, He})}{n_{\mH} \sigma_{48}(E_{\rm th, He})
907: + n_{\He} \sigma_{50}(E_{\rm th, He})},
908: \end{equation}
909: where $E_{\rm th, He} = 24.6 \: {\rm eV}$ is the $\He$ ionization threshold. (Note that if
910: $n_{\He}/n_{\mH} \simeq 0.08$, as is the case in primordial gas with a low fractional
911: ionization and low $\mHt$ abundance, then $y \simeq 0.68$). If the on-the-spot
912: approximation does not apply, then the radiative transfer of this diffuse emission must
913: be modelled in some fashion. However, a discussion of appropriate techniques for
914: doing so lies well beyond the scope of this paper.
915:
916: In some circumstances it may also be necessary to take account of the
917: photodissociation of $\Hm$ and $\mHtp$ by photons produced by ionized
918: hydrogen and helium (both recombination emission and bremsstrahlung).
919: This process is generally important only in neutral gas close to a significant
920: volume of dense, ionized gas (e.g.\ in the neutral gas immediately
921: surrounding an expanding ionization front). It is discussed in detail in
922: \citet{GLO07} and so we do not discuss it further here.
923:
924: Finally, we note that for each of the photoionization or photodissociation rates
925: listed in Table~\ref{tab:chem_gas_photo}, there is a corresponding photoheating
926: rate, given by
927: \begin{equation}
928: R_{\rm heat} = 4\pi \int_{E_{0}}^{\infty} \frac{\sigma(E) I(E)}{E} e^{-\tau(E)}
929: (E-E_{0}) \eta(E-E_{0}) {\rm d}E.
930: \end{equation}
931: where $E-E_{0}$ is the energy of the primary photoelectron and
932: $\eta(E-E_{0}) \leq 1$ gives the fraction of this energy converted to
933: heat, which can be calculated using the results of \citet{svs85} or \citet{dyl99}.
934: In practice, photoheating from the photoionization of $\mH$ and $\He$ usually
935: dominates over the other contributions by a wide margin.
936:
937: \subsubsection{$\mHt$ and $\hd$ photodissociation}
938: \label{h2_photodiss}
939: Although the binding energy of $\mHt$ is only 4.48~eV, photons of this energy are not
940: able to dissociate $\mHt$ effectively, as the simplest dissociative transition -- excitation
941: to the vibrational continuum of the ground state -- is strongly forbidden~\citep{fsd66}.
942: Transitions to the repulsive b$^{3}\Sigma_{u}^{+}$ state, the least energetic of the excited
943: electronic states of $\mHt$, are also forbidden, and so photodissociation takes place
944: primarily through excitation to the Lyman (B$\,^{1}\Sigma^{+}_{u}$) or Werner
945: (C$\,^{1}\Pi_{u}$) electronic states followed by radiative decay to the vibrational continuum
946: of the ground state. As a number of vibrational levels are accessible in each excited state,
947: photodissociation takes place through a number of discrete absorption lines, known as the
948: Lyman and Werner band systems \citep{sw67}.
949:
950: In optically thin gas, the photodissociation rate can be written as
951: \begin{equation}
952: R_{\rm diss} = \sum_{v,J} R_{{\rm diss}, v,J} f_{v,J}
953: \end{equation}
954: where $f_{v,J}$ is the fraction of $\mHt$ molecules that have vibrational and rotational
955: quantum numbers $(v,J)$ in the electronic ground state, and $R_{{\rm diss}, v,J}$ is the
956: photodissociation rate due to transitions out of $(v,J)$. The latter can be written as
957: \begin{equation}
958: R_{{\rm diss},v,J} = \sum_{v^{\prime},J^{\prime}} \zeta_{v,J,v^{\prime},J^{\prime}}
959: f_{{\rm diss},v^{\prime},J^{\prime}},
960: \end{equation}
961: where $\zeta_{v,J,v^{\prime},J^{\prime}}$ is the pumping rate from level $(v,J)$ in the
962: electronic ground state to level $(v^{\prime},J^{\prime})$ in either the Lyman or Werner states,
963: $f_{{\rm diss},v^{\prime},J^{\prime}}$ is the fraction of decays from $v^{\prime}, J^{\prime}$
964: which end in the vibrational continuum of the ground state (rather than back in some bound
965: state), and where we sum over all accessible levels. Given appropriate molecular data,
966: calculation of $R_{{\rm diss},v,J}$ is straightforward for each bound level $(v,J)$ in the
967: electronic ground state. To then calculate $R_{\rm diss}$, one also needs to know the level
968: populations $f_{v,J}$.
969:
970: If we assume that the mean intensity $I(\nu) \equiv h I(E)$ is independent of energy, and that
971: all of the $\mHt$ is in the $v=0, J=0$ level (i.e.\ the para-hydrogen ground state), then
972: $R_{\rm diss}$ evaluates to
973: \begin{equation}
974: R_{\rm diss} = 1.38 \times 10^{9} I(\nu) \: {\rm s^{-1}}, \label{h2_thin_flat}
975: \end{equation}
976: where we have made use of molecular data taken from \citet{ab93a,ab93b} and \citet{ard00}.
977: This expression remains a good approximation in the more general case that $I(\nu)$ is allowed
978: to vary with frequency, provided that the variations are not too extreme and that we replace $I(\nu)$ in
979: equation~\ref{h2_thin_flat} with $I(\bar{\nu})$, where $h\bar{\nu} = 12.87 \: {\rm eV}$ \citep{ABE97}:
980: \begin{equation}
981: R_{\rm diss} = 1.38 \times 10^{9} I(\bar{\nu}) \: {\rm s^{-1}}. \label{h2_thin}
982: \end{equation}
983: Relaxing the assumption that all of the $\mHt$ has $J=0$ also makes little difference to
984: $R_{\rm diss}$ \citep{gl01}. Vibrational excitation of the $\mHt$ makes a much larger difference
985: \citep{sh78}, but at low gas densities we would expect the populations of the vibrational levels of
986: $\mHt$ to be very small. Equation~\ref{h2_thin} therefore gives a reasonable estimate of the
987: optically thin $\mHt$ photodissociation rate within the regions of parameter space for which our
988: chemical model is valid.
989:
990: If enough $\mHt$ is present in the gas, then the Lyman-Werner lines can become optically
991: thick, leading to a reduction in the $\mHt$ photodissociation rate, an effect known as $\mHt$
992: self-shielding. If the gas is at rest, then the effects of $\mHt$ self-shielding can be treated
993: quite accurately using the prescription of \citet{DRA96}. They parameterize the self-shielding
994: with a shielding function $f_{\rm sh}$, defined to be the ratio of the $\mHt$ photodissociation
995: rate in self-shielded gas to the rate in optically thin gas. They demonstrate how to calculate
996: $f_{\rm sh}$ as a function of the gas temperature and the $\mHt$ column density
997: and also construct the following useful fitting function:
998: \begin{equation}
999: f_{\rm sh} = \frac{0.965}{(1 + x/b_{5})^{2}} + \frac{0.035}{(1 + x)^{1/2}}
1000: \exp\left[-8.5 \times 10^{-4} (1+x)^{1/2}\right], \label{db_fsh}
1001: \end{equation}
1002: where $x = N_{\mHt} / 5 \times 10^{14} \: {\rm cm}^{-2}$, $N_{\mHt}$ is the $\mHt$
1003: column density, $b_{5} = b / 10^{5} \: {\rm cm} \:{\rm s}^{-1}$ and $b$ is the Doppler
1004: broadening parameter. Although \citet{DRA96} assume a semi-inifinite slab
1005: geometry in their models, their approach is easy to extend to more complicated
1006: geometries.
1007:
1008: Unfortunately, their simple treatment breaks down in gas which is not at rest. Doppler
1009: shifts due to the motions of the gas cause $\mHt$ in different regions to absorb at
1010: slightly different wavelengths, and if these Doppler shifts are comparable to or larger
1011: than the thermal linewidth of the gas (as will be the case in transonic or supersonic
1012: gas respectively), then the effect is to reduce the amount of self-shielding that occurs.
1013: An accurate treatment of $\mHt$ self-shielding in this regime probably requires one to
1014: solve the full frequency-dependent transport equation, which cannot currently be done
1015: in a computationally efficient manner within a three-dimensional hydrodynamics code.
1016: Consequently, various different approximations have been used to study $\mHt$
1017: photodissociation in this regime.
1018:
1019: The simplest approach is to ignore self-shielding entirely \citep[see e.g.][]{MAC01,MAC03}.
1020: This is a good approximation if the velocities in the gas are large and the $\mHt$
1021: column densities are small, but otherwise will significantly overestimate the
1022: photodissociation rate. At the other extreme, one can ignore the effects of Doppler
1023: shifts \citep[e.g.][]{YOS03,hi06}. This is a good approximation if the $\mHt$ column density
1024: is sufficiently large ($N_{\mHt} > 10^{19} \: {\rm cm^{-2}}$) that the Lorentz wings of
1025: the Lyman-Werner line profiles dominate the line widths, as in this case the line widths
1026: will be much larger than any likely Doppler shifts within the molecular gas. On the other
1027: hand, this approach will underestimate the true photodissociation rate when
1028: $N_{\mHt} < 10^{19} \: {\rm cm^{-2}}$, as is the case in many interesting low-metallicity
1029: systems.
1030:
1031: Another approximation has recently been suggested by \citet{as07}. They use
1032: equation~(\ref{db_fsh}) to compute $f_{\rm sh}$, but adopt a value for $b$ that
1033: includes both a thermal contribution and one arising due to the velocity
1034: dispersion of the gas. In practice, this means that they treat their $\mHt$ as having
1035: an effective $b$ equivalent to that in a purely thermal gas with
1036: $T = 10^{4} \: {\rm K}$. The accuracy of this approximation depends on the
1037: correlation length of the velocity field. If this is small compared to the other length
1038: scales of interest, then treating the velocity dispersion in this fashion is reasonable
1039: and should give a fairly accurate result. On the other hand, if the velocity field is
1040: dominated by large-scale bulk motions (such as infall into a protogalaxy), then
1041: this approximation will be significantly less accurate.
1042:
1043: Finally, in \citet{GLO06} and in paper II, we use a local approximation in which only
1044: the $\mHt$ within a single SPH smoothing length is assumed to contribute to the
1045: shielding \citep[see also][for a grid-based version of this approach]{gm07a,gm07b}.
1046: This fairly crude approximation is intended to take account of the fact that $\mHt$
1047: close to a given point of interest is more likely to have only a small relative velocity
1048: than gas a large distance away. It will generally underestimate the amount of
1049: self-shielding, but nevertheless represents an improvement over neglecting
1050: self-shielding entirely. Aside from its inevitable inaccuracy, this approximation
1051: also suffers from the disadvantage of being resolution dependent, as increasing the
1052: number of SPH particles in the simulation will generally decrease all of the SPH
1053: smoothing lengths and hence will cause a systematic increase in $f_{\rm sh}$.
1054: On the other hand, it has the significant advantages of being computationally
1055: efficient (as only local data is required) as well as being very easy to implement.
1056:
1057: To sum up, a number of different approximate methods exist for treating $\mHt$
1058: self-shielding in large numerical simulations, but none are entirely satisfying.
1059: Further work on this problem is definitely called for.
1060:
1061: Turning now to $\hd$, we note that $\hd$ photodissociation in optically thin gas
1062: can be treated in much the same way as $\mHt$ photodissociation. The
1063: necessary molecular data for $\hd$ can be found in \citet{ar06}, and the
1064: resulting photodissociation rate for a radiation field with a flat spectrum can be
1065: written as
1066: \begin{equation}
1067: R_{\rm diss, \hd} = 1.5 \times 10^{9} I(\nu) \: {\rm s^{-1}}, \label{hd_flat}
1068: \end{equation}
1069: which is only $\sim 10\%$ larger than the $\mHt$ rate. Above an HD column
1070: density $N_{\hd} \simeq 10^{13} \: {\rm cm^{-2}}$, self-shielding of the HD lines
1071: significantly reduces the photodissociation rate. For a static gas, this process can
1072: again be modeled using the approach of \citet{DRA96}, although the same
1073: problems arise when one tries to extend this approach to a gas distribution which
1074: is not static. However, in the case of $\hd$,
1075: we face an additional complication: if the $\hd$ column density is sufficiently
1076: high for HD self-shielding to be significant, then the $\mHt$ column density will
1077: be very much larger (since even in significantly fractionated regions, one
1078: typically has an HD:$\mHt$ ratio of no more than about $10^{-3}$). Consequently,
1079: the line widths of the $\mHt$ Lyman-Werner lines are not negligible, and some
1080: degree of overlap between these lines and the HD absorption lines will occur.
1081: Additionally, if the $\mHt$:H ratio is small, as will often be the case in the systems
1082: of interest, then a significant HD column density implies a large neutral hydrogen
1083: column density, which means that absorption of radiation in the Lyman series lines
1084: of atomic hydrogen must also be taken into account.
1085:
1086: These effects are difficult to
1087: include accurately in a simple treatment of HD self-shielding and before attempting
1088: to do so it is reasonable to ask whether an accurate treatment of HD self-shielding
1089: is really required. We argue that in many cases of interest it is not. Comparison
1090: of the rate at which $\hd$ is photodissociated in optically thin gas with the rate at
1091: which it is destroyed by reaction 21 demonstrates that the latter dominates
1092: whenever $n_{\Hp} \simgreat 10^{-3} J_{21}(\bar{\nu})$, where $J_{21}(\bar{\nu})$ is
1093: the strength of the radiation field at $h\bar{\nu} = 12.87 \: {\rm eV}$ in units of
1094: $10^{-21} \: {\rm ergs} \: {\rm s^{-1}} \: {\rm cm^{-2}} \: {\rm Hz^{-1}} \: {\rm sr^{-1}}$.
1095: Photodissociation therefore dominates only when the UV field is strong or the
1096: proton number density is small. However, in either case, it is difficult to see how
1097: the large column densities of HD and $\mHt$ required for effective shielding could
1098: be built up or maintained. Therefore, we suspect that for most applications, treating
1099: the HD in the optically thin limit is probably sufficient, as in the conditions where this
1100: approximation breaks down, photodissociation is unlikely to be important.
1101:
1102: \section{Thermal processes}
1103: \label{therm}
1104: \subsection{Fine structure cooling}
1105: \label{fscool}
1106: As we do not include molecular coolants such as CO or ${\rm H_{2}O}$ in our chemical
1107: model of metal-enriched gas, for the reasons outlined in \S\ref{chem_choice},
1108: the main contribution that the metals make to the cooling of the gas is through fine structure
1109: line emission from neutral $\mC$, $\mO$ and $\mSi$ atoms and $\cp$ and $\sip$ ions. To
1110: model this emission, we assume that the populations of all the electronically excited
1111: levels of these atoms and ions are negligible, an approximation which should be highly
1112: accurate at the gas densities considered in this study. This assumption allows us to
1113: model $\cp$ and $\sip$ as two-level systems and $\mC$, $\mO$ and $\mSi$ as
1114: three-level systems, allowing us to compute their effects in a straightforward fashion.
1115: For a two-level ion, if we denote the ground state as level 0 and the excited state as
1116: level 1, then the power radiated per unit volume can be written as
1117: \begin{equation}
1118: \Lambda = (A_{10} + B_{10} I_{10}) E_{10} n_{1}, \label{tl_cool}
1119: \end{equation}
1120: where $n_{1}$ is the number density of ions in level 1, $A_{10}$ is the Einstein
1121: coefficient for spontaneous emission for the transition from level 1 to level 0,
1122: $B_{10}$ is the corresponding coefficient for stimulated emission,
1123: $E_{10}$ is the energy of the transition, and $I_{10}$ is the mean specific intensity
1124: at the frequency of the transition. If $I_{10} \neq 0$, then the ions will also absorb
1125: energy from the radiation field, at a rate
1126: \begin{equation}
1127: \Gamma = B_{01} I_{10} E_{10} n_{0},
1128: \end{equation}
1129: where $n_{0}$ is the number density of ions in level 0 and $B_{01}$ is the Einstein
1130: coefficient for absorption from level 0 to level 1, which is related to $B_{10}$ by
1131: $B_{01} = (g_{1}/g_{0}) B_{10}$, where $g_{0}$ and $g_{1}$ are the statistical
1132: weights of levels 0 and 1 respectively. The net loss of energy per unit time per
1133: unit volume is therefore
1134: \begin{eqnarray}
1135: \Lambda^{\prime} & = & \Lambda - \Gamma \nonumber \\
1136: & = & E_{10} \left( \{A_{10} n_{1} + B_{10} I_{10} [n_{1} - (g_{1} / g_{0}) n_{0}] \} \right),
1137: \end{eqnarray}
1138: and it will be seen that if
1139: \begin{equation}
1140: n_{0} > \frac{A_{10} + B_{10} I_{10}}{(g_{1}/g_{0}) B_{10} I_{10}} n_{1},
1141: \end{equation}
1142: then the ions will absorb more energy than they emit, and so the gas will actually
1143: gain energy.
1144:
1145: To compute $\Lambda^{\prime}$, we need to know several pieces of atomic data
1146: -- the values of $A_{10}$, $E_{10}$, $g_{0}$ and $g_{1}$, which are summarized
1147: for $\cp$ and $\sip$ in Table~\ref{fs_data} -- together with the values of
1148: $I_{01}$, $n_{0}$ and $n_{1}$. To compute $n_{0}$ and $n_{1}$, we assume that the levels
1149: are in statistical equilibrium, in which case:
1150: \begin{equation}
1151: (B_{01} I_{01} + C_{01}) n_{0} = (A_{10} + B_{10} I_{10} + C_{10}) n_{1},
1152: \end{equation}
1153: where $C_{01}$ and $C_{10}$ are the total rates of collisional excitation and
1154: de-excitation respectively. These are related by
1155: \begin{equation}
1156: C_{01} = C_{10} \frac{g_{1}}{g_{0}} \expf{-}{E_{10}}{kT},
1157: \end{equation}
1158: and so once one is known, the other can be computed easily. In Table~\ref{fs_coll_rates},
1159: we list collisional de-excitation rates for collisions between $\cp$ or $\sip$ and various
1160: possible collision partners such as $\mH$, $\mHt$ or $\me$. Given the number densities
1161: of these species, $C_{10}$ can be easily computed, since
1162: \begin{equation}
1163: C_{10} = \sum_{k} q_{10, k} n_{k},
1164: \end{equation}
1165: where $q_{10,k}$ is the collisional de-excitation rate for a collision with chemical
1166: species $k$ with number density $n_{k}$. For $\cp$, we include the effects of collisions
1167: with electrons, atomic hydrogen and molecular hydrogen (in both ortho and para forms).
1168: The collision rate with $\Hp$ is negligible at the temperatures of interest due to the strong
1169: Coloumb repulsion, and the abundances of the other chemical species included in our
1170: model are too small for them to be important collision partners. For $\sip$, we include
1171: only the effects of collisions with $\mH$ and $\me$, as rates for collisions with $\mHt$
1172: are not available. However, provided that the $\mHt$ abundance is small compared to
1173: the atomic hydrogen abundance, this is unlikely to be a major source of error.
1174:
1175: Finally, to compute $I_{10}$, we assume that the only significant radiation field
1176: present at the infra-red and sub-millimeter wavelengths of the fine structure transitions
1177: is the cosmic microwave background. In that case, $I_{10}$ is simply given by the
1178: value of the Planck function at the frequency of the transition for a radiation field with
1179: temperature $T = T_{\rm CMB} = 2.726 (1+z) \: {\rm K}$.
1180:
1181: For the three-level atoms ($\mC$, $\mO$ and $\mSi$), we use a very similar approach.
1182: In this case, the power radiated per unit volume is
1183: \begin{equation}
1184: \Lambda = (A_{10} + B_{10} I_{10}) E_{10} n_{1} + (A_{20} + B_{20} I_{20}) E_{20} n_{2}
1185: + (A_{21} + B_{21} I_{21}) E_{21} n_{2},
1186: \end{equation}
1187: and the power absorbed per unit volume is
1188: \begin{equation}
1189: \Gamma = B_{01} I_{10} E_{10} n_{0} + B_{02} I_{20} E_{20} n_{0} +
1190: B_{12} I_{21} E_{21} n_{1},
1191: \end{equation}
1192: where 0, 1 and 2 denote the ground state and the two excited states respectively. The
1193: level populations $n_{0}$, $n_{1}$ and $n_{2}$ are found by solving
1194: \begin{eqnarray}
1195: (B_{01} I_{01} + C_{01} + B_{02} I_{02} + C_{02}) n_{0} & = &
1196: (A_{10} + B_{10} I_{10} + C_{10}) n_{1} + (A_{20} + B_{20} I_{20} + C_{20}) n_{2}, \\
1197: (B_{10} I_{10} + C_{10} + B_{12} I_{12} + C_{12}) n_{1} & = &
1198: (B_{01} I_{01} + C_{01}) n_{0} + (A_{21} + B_{21} I_{21} + C_{21}) n_{2},
1199: \end{eqnarray}
1200: with all symbols having their obvious meanings. To compute the total collisional
1201: excitation and de-excitation rates for carbon and oxygen we include the effects of
1202: collisions with ortho and para-$\mHt$, atomic hydrogen, protons and electrons.
1203: For silicon, we include only the effects of collisions with $\mH$ and $\Hp$, as rates
1204: for collisions with $\mHt$ or electrons do not appear to be available. The rates used
1205: are summarized in Table~\ref{fs_coll_rates}.
1206:
1207: \subsection{Other coolants}
1208: \label{cool:other}
1209: Apart from fine structure emission, we also include in our thermal model several
1210: other processes that can lead to the cooling of the gas. These are summarized in
1211: Table~\ref{cool_other}, along with a reference to the source (or sources) from
1212: which the associated cooling rate has been taken. In most cases, the rate itself
1213: is also listed.
1214:
1215: In hot, ionized gas, cooling is dominated by electron impact excitation of atomic
1216: hydrogen (Lyman-$\alpha$ cooling), atomic helium and $\Hep$. Excitation of
1217: atomic helium occurs from both the $1^1$S ground state and the $2^3$S
1218: metastable state. In common with previous authors, we assume that the
1219: population of the $2^3$S state is set by the balance between radiative
1220: recombination to triplet states and radiative decay to the ground state.
1221: One consequence of this assumption is that the number density of $\He$
1222: atoms in the $2^3$S state, $n_{{\rm He} (2^3{\rm S})}$, is proportional to
1223: the product of the number densities of free electrons and of $\Hep$, i.e.\
1224: $n_{{\rm He} (2^3{\rm S})} \propto n_{\rm e} n_{\Hep}$, which means that
1225: the cooling rate from metastable helium scales as
1226: $n_{{\rm He} (2^3{\rm S})} n_{\rm e} \propto n_{\rm e}^{2} n_{\Hep}$.
1227: To model cooling from $\mH$, the $\He$ metastable state, and $\Hep$, we use
1228: rates from \citet{CEN92}, which themselves were based on earlier work by \citet{BLA81}.
1229: To model cooling from the $\He$ ground state, we use our own fit to the data of
1230: \citet{BBFT00}.
1231:
1232: A number of other processes are of importance in ionized gas. We include cooling
1233: due to collisional ionization of atomic hydrogen and atomic helium, the gas phase
1234: recombination of $\Hp$ and $\Hep$, ionic recombination on dust grains, Compton
1235: scattering of CMB photons by free electrons (Compton cooling), and thermal
1236: bremsstrahlung. The rates adopted for all of these processes are summarized in
1237: Table~\ref{cool_other}. As the chemical and thermal model presented here is not
1238: designed to be used for the study of very hot gas, we do not include processes
1239: involving ${\rm He^{++}}$ (although rates for these processes can be found in
1240: \citealt{CEN92}).
1241:
1242: In neutral gas, all of the aforementioned processes become ineffective. In cool,
1243: neutral gas, most of the cooling comes from $\mHt$ or from the fine structure
1244: lines of carbon, oxygen and silicon, which have already been discussed above.
1245: Cooling from $\mHt$ is treated in our model through use of the cooling function of
1246: \citet{BOU99}, which we have extended to temperatures below $100 \: {\rm K}$ by
1247: assuming that only the $J = 2 \rightarrow 0$ and $J = 3 \rightarrow 1$ transitions
1248: contribute significantly to the cooling rate. \citet{BOU99} tabulate the $\mHt$ cooling
1249: rate as a function of temperature, density,
1250: $\mH$:$\mHt$ ratio and ortho:para ratio. For simplicity, in our implementation we
1251: do not track the evolution of the $\mHt$ ortho:para ratio, instead keeping it fixed at
1252: 3:1, but we note that variations in this ratio are unlikely to significantly affect the
1253: $\mHt$ cooling rate at temperatures at which it contributes significantly to the total
1254: cooling rate (see, for instance, figure~5 in \citealt{BOU99}). A comparison of the
1255: \citeauthor{BOU99} $\mHt$ cooling rate with various other rates that have been
1256: used in the literature is given in paper II (Figure~1).
1257:
1258: At low temperatures ($T \simless 200 \: {\rm K}$), $\hd$ cooling becomes
1259: increasingly important and can dominate the total cooling rate if sufficient
1260: fractionation occurs \citep{GP98}. To model $\hd$ cooling, we use the recent
1261: cooling function of \citet{lna05}. They provide a complicated fit as a value of
1262: temperature and density that is valid over a wide range of both. For further details,
1263: the interested reader should consult their paper.
1264:
1265: We include two final processes that can become important in some
1266: circumstances. Cooling due to $\mHt$ collisional dissociation is
1267: modelled under the assumption that each dissociation removes
1268: $\sim$4.48~eV of thermal energy from the gas. It is an effective source
1269: of cooling only at temperatures above a few thousand Kelvin. In practice,
1270: the $\mHt$ abundance in zero metallicity or low metallicity gas is frequently
1271: too small for this process to be important.
1272:
1273: We also include the effects of energy transfer from the gas to the dust grains
1274: (if present), using a rate from \citet{HOL89}. At solar metallicity, this becomes
1275: important at a density $n \sim 10^{4} \: {\rm cm^{-3}}$, but at lower metallicities,
1276: it does not dominate until significantly larger densities are reached
1277: \citep[see e.g.][]{OMU05}.
1278:
1279: \subsection{Heating}
1280: \label{heat:other}
1281: We include in our model the effects of several processes that can heat the gas.
1282: Most of these processes operate only if a radiation background is present. The
1283: first of these is photoelectric emission from dust grains. This operates as follows:
1284: photons that interact with dust grains
1285: can cause the ejection of energetic electrons from the grain if the photon energy
1286: exceeds the work function of the grain. As the energy carried by the electrons is
1287: quickly thermalized, this leads to the heating of the gas. This process is of great
1288: importance in the local ISM and has been examined in detail by a number of
1289: authors \citep[e.g.][]{BAK94,WOL95,WEI01b,RAE04}.
1290:
1291: To accurately compute the effects of photoelectric emission, we need to know
1292: the grain size distribution and the composition of the grains. However, as
1293: discussed previously, large uncertainties exist concerning the properties of
1294: grains in low metallicity protogalactic gas. We therefore make the same
1295: assumption here as we did in our treatment of grain surface chemistry, i.e.\
1296: that the dust has the same properties as Milky Way dust, but has an abundance
1297: that is reduced by a factor $({\rm Z}/{\rm Z_{\odot}})$. This assumption allows
1298: us to use the following expression for the photoelectric heating rate, taken from
1299: \citet{WOL95}:
1300: \begin{equation}
1301: \Gamma_{\rm pe} = 1.3 \times 10^{-24} \epsilon \, G
1302: \left(\frac{{\rm Z}}{{\rm Z_{\odot}}}\right) n \: {\rm erg} \: {\rm s^{-1}} \: {\rm cm^{-3}},
1303: \end{equation}
1304: where $G \simeq 0.01 J_{21}$ is a measure of the radiation energy density between
1305: $6 \: {\rm eV}$ and $13.6 \: {\rm eV}$ relative to the \citet{habing68} field, and
1306: where $\epsilon$ is the photoelectric heating efficiency, given by
1307: \begin{equation}
1308: \epsilon = \frac{4.9 \times 10^{-2}}{1.0 + 4.0 \times 10^{-3} \tilde{\psi}^{0.73}} +
1309: \frac{3.7 \times 10^{-2} T_{4}^{0.7}}{1.0 + 2.0 \times 10^{-4} \tilde{\psi}},
1310: \end{equation}
1311: where $T_{4} = T / 10^{4} \: {\rm K}$. The parameter $\tilde{\psi}$ that controls
1312: the photoelectric heating efficiency is given by $\tilde{\psi} = G \sqrt{T} / 0.5 n_{\rm e}$
1313: \citep{WOL03}; note that this differs by a factor of 2 from the parameter $\psi$
1314: introduced in \S\ref{surface_chem}. For small $\tilde{\psi}$, most grains
1315: are negatively charged and $\epsilon \simeq 4.9 \times 10^{-2} +
1316: 3.7 \times 10^{-2} T_{4}^{0.7}$. On the other hand, for large
1317: $\tilde{\psi}$, most grains are positively charged, and $\epsilon$ is small, as it is
1318: difficult for photons with energies $E < 13.6 \: {\rm eV}$ to dislodge further
1319: electrons from the grains.
1320:
1321: A second source of radiative heating is the photodissociation of $\mHt$. Our
1322: treatment of photodissociation heating follows \citet{BLA77}: we assume that
1323: each photodissociation deposits $0.4 \: {\rm eV}$ of themal energy into the gas.
1324: As well as photodissociating some of the $\mHt$, an ultraviolet background
1325: will also produce vibrationally excited $\mHt$ via radiative pumping of the
1326: excited levels. In dense gas, this pumping leads to heating as most of
1327: the excited molecules undergo collisional de-excitation. We include the
1328: effects of radiative pumping by adopting a pumping rate that is 8.5 times larger
1329: than the photodissociation rate \citep{DRA96}, and assuming that each excitation
1330: transfers an average of $2 \, (1 + n_{\rm cr}/n)^{-1} \: {\rm eV}$ to the gas
1331: \citep{BUR90}, where $n_{\rm cr}$ is the critical density at which collisional
1332: de-excitation of vibrationally excited $\mHt$ occurs at the same rate as radiative
1333: de-excitation. Our value for $n_{\rm cr}$ is a weighted harmonic mean of the
1334: value for $\mHt$-$\mH$ collisions given by \citet{LEP83}, reduced by a factor
1335: of ten as advised by \citet{MAR96}, and the value for $\mHt$-$\mHt$ collisions
1336: given by \citet{SHA87}.
1337:
1338: Heating due to the photoionization of $\mH$ or $\He$ has already been discussed
1339: in \S\ref{photochem} and we do not discuss it further here. As is also discussed in that
1340: section, we do not include heating due to the photodetachment of $\Hm$, photodissociation
1341: of $\mHtp$ or photoionization of $\mC$, $\mO$, $\mSi$ or $\sip$, as the contribution
1342: from these processes is not significant.
1343:
1344: We also include the effects of heating due to $\mHt$ formation. The formation of
1345: an $\mHt$ molecule via reaction 2 releases 3.53~eV of energy, while formation
1346: via reaction 4 releases 1.83~eV, and formation on a grain surface (reaction 60)
1347: releases 4.48~eV. We assume that essentially all of this energy goes into rotational
1348: and vibrational excitation of the resulting $\mHt$ molecule, and hence is radiated
1349: away at low gas densities and is converted by collisional de-excitation into heat
1350: at high gas densities.
1351:
1352: Finally, we include heating due to the ionization of the gas by cosmic rays.
1353: Following \citet{gl78}, we assume that every ionization deposits 20~eV of heat
1354: in the gas, and so derive a heating rate that scales with the total cosmic ray
1355: ionization rate of the gas (i.e.\ the sum of the ionization rates for the various
1356: individual chemical species, weighted by the fractional abundances of those
1357: species). Since considerable uncertainty exists concerning the value of the cosmic
1358: ray ionization rate in the local interstellar medium \citep[see the discussion in][]{mcc03},
1359: let alone concerning the appropriate rate to use in high-redshift protogalaxies,
1360: a more detailed treatment does not appear to be warranted at this time.
1361:
1362: \section{Applications}
1363: \label{appl}
1364: The chemical network and thermal model described in the preceding sections
1365: have a number of potential applications. One of the more obvious applications
1366: is the study of the cooling and gravitational collapse of gas in low metallicity
1367: protogalaxies. As previously noted, the density range for which our model is
1368: valid corresponds to a wide range of cosmological overdensities. It can
1369: therefore be used to study the thermal and chemical evolution of the majority
1370: of the gas within a given protogalaxy. For example, suppose we model the
1371: gas distribution within a $z=20$ halo as a singular isothermal sphere with
1372: mean number density within the virial radius $\bar{n} = 0.4 \: {\rm cm^{-3}}$
1373: (a reasonable zeroth-order approximation for a protogalactic halo with a
1374: mean overdensity $\delta = 200$; see e.g.\ \citealt{ABE02}). In this case,
1375: only $\sim$4\% of the gas within the halo has a density $n > 100 \: {\rm cm^{-3}}$
1376: at which our model may break down. Therefore, although our model is of limited
1377: usefulness for studying gravitational fragmentation and star formation within
1378: this dense central region, it does allow one to study many other important
1379: problems, such as how the minimum protogalactic mass at which cooling
1380: becomes effective is affected by the presence of metals, or how the gas
1381: responds to the presence of an ultraviolet background. We use a version
1382: of this model to address some of these questions in paper II for the case of
1383: small protogalactic halos within initially ionized regions.
1384:
1385: A second possible application is the study of the evolution of the ISM in high
1386: redshift, metal-poor dwarf galaxies. In this case, much of the gas involved is
1387: often gravitational stable, and so the characteristic timescales are longer
1388: than the gravitational free-fall time. This limits the applicability of the model
1389: to lower densities than in the case of gravitationally collapsing protogalaxies.
1390: However, even if we adopt a relatively long characteristic timescale
1391: $t_{\rm char} = 100 \: {\rm Myr}$, corresponding to the sound crossing time of
1392: a $1 \: {\rm kpc}$ disk at a sound speed of $10 \: {\rm km} \: {\rm s^{-1}}$, the
1393: model remains valid for densities up to $n \sim 5 \: {\rm cm^{-3}}$ even in the
1394: least auspicious case (${\rm Z} = 0.1 \: {\rm Z_{\odot}}$ gas, with no significant
1395: UV radiation field present). Our model is therefore well-suited for use in the
1396: study of the evolution of the warm neutral component of the ISM in such
1397: galaxies and will in some cases also be useful in the study of the cold neutral
1398: component. However, the reader is reminded that our model does not
1399: treat hot ($T \gg 10^{4} \: {\rm K}$), highly-ionized gas, and cannot be used
1400: to study the effects of stellar feedback (\hii regions, supernovae, etc.) unless
1401: coupled with some existing model capable of treating this hot gas
1402: (see e.g. \citealt{sd93}).
1403:
1404: As well as studying the chemical evolution of gas {\em within} dwarf
1405: galaxies and protogalaxies,
1406: we can also use it to study the chemical evolution of gas {\em between}
1407: galaxies, i.e.\ the intergalactic medium (IGM). One important reason to
1408: do so is the fact that several different obervational techniques have been
1409: suggested that may allow one to probe the thermal and chemical state of
1410: this gas. \citet{oh02} has suggested that if large regions of the IGM remain
1411: neutral after the turn-on of the first observable ionizing sources, then
1412: atomic oxygen in the IGM may be detectable through its UV absorption,
1413: as it will produce an \oi forest analogous to the $z < 6$ \hi
1414: Lyman-$\alpha$ forest. \citet{fl03} also argue that a substantial
1415: fraction of the metals in high-redshift Galactic winds are likely to be in
1416: low-ionization states and may be observable in absorption.
1417: Metals in the high redshift IGM may also leave detectable imprints in the
1418: fluctuation spectrum of the cosmic microwave background \citep{bhs04,hrs06}.
1419: Finally, \citet{hmh07} have recently suggested that fine structure emission
1420: from atomic oxygen may also produce a detectable spectral distortion of the
1421: CMB if the excited fine-structure levels can be populated by radiative pumping
1422: via the \oi Balmer-$\alpha$ transition.
1423: Accurate modelling of many of these effects requires accurate modelling of
1424: the temperature and chemical make-up of the intergalactic gas, and hence
1425: a model such as that presented here.
1426:
1427: \acknowledgments
1428: We thank R. Klessen and M.-M. Mac Low for useful discussions, and the
1429: anonymous referee for valuable feedback on earlier drafts of this paper.
1430: We also thank R.-S. Ciobanu for pointing out a serious typographical
1431: error in an earlier version of this paper.
1432: S.C.O.G. acknowledges support from NSF grant AST03-07793 during the early
1433: phases of this work. A.K.J. acknowledges support from the Emmy Noether
1434: Program of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (grant no.\ KL1358/1).
1435:
1436: \begin{thebibliography}{32}
1437: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi
1438: \bibitem[Abel et~al.(1997)]{ABE97}
1439: Abel, T., Anninos, P., Zhang, Y., \& Norman, M.~L. 1997, New Astron., 2, 181
1440:
1441: \bibitem[{{Abel} {et~al.}(2002){Abel}, {Bryan}, \& {Norman}}]{ABE02}
1442: {Abel}, T., {Bryan}, G.~L., \& {Norman}, M.~L. 2002, Science, 295, 93
1443:
1444: \bibitem[Abgrall {et~al.}(1993a)]{ab93a}
1445: Abgrall, H., Roueff, E., Launay, F., Roncin, J.-Y., \& Subtil, J.-L. 1993a, A\&AS, 101, 273
1446:
1447: \bibitem[Abgrall {et~al.}(1993b)]{ab93b}
1448: Abgrall, H., Roueff, E., Launay, F., Roncin, J.-Y., \& Subtil, J.-L. 1993b, A\&AS, 101, 323
1449:
1450: \bibitem[Abgrall, Roueff \& Drira(2000)]{ard00}
1451: Abgrall, H., Roueff, E., \& Drira, I. 2000, A\&AS, 141, 297
1452:
1453: \bibitem[Abgrall \& Roueff(2006)]{ar06}
1454: Abgrall, H., \& Roueff, E. 2006, A\&A, 445, 361
1455:
1456: \bibitem[Ahn \& Shapiro(2007)]{as07}
1457: Ahn, K., \& Shapiro, P.~R. 2007, MNRAS, 375, 881
1458:
1459: \bibitem[Aldrovandi \& Pequignot(1973)]{ap73}
1460: Aldrovandi, S.~M.~V. \& Pequignot, D. 1973, A\&A, 25, 137
1461:
1462: \bibitem[Asplund, Grevesse \& Sauval(2006)]{asp06}
1463: Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., \& Sauval, J. 2006, Nucl.\ Phys. A, 777, 1
1464:
1465: \bibitem[Bakes \& Tielens(1994)]{BAK94}
1466: Bakes, E.~L.~O., \& Tielens, A.~G.~G.~M. 1994, \apj, 427, 822
1467:
1468: \bibitem[Barlow(1984)]{ba84}
1469: Barlow, S.~G. 1984, PhD thesis, Univ.\ Colorado
1470:
1471: \bibitem[Basu {et~al}(2004)]{bhs04}
1472: Basu, K., Hern\'{a}ndez-Monteagudo, C., \& Sunyaev, R.~A. 2004, A\&A, 416, 447
1473:
1474: \bibitem[Bell, Berrington \& Thomas(1998)]{BEL98}
1475: Bell, K.~L., Berrington K.~A., \& Thomas, M.~R.~J. 1998, \mnras, 293, L83
1476:
1477: \bibitem[{{Black} \& {Dalgarno}(1977)}]{BLA77}
1478: {Black}, J.~H. \& {Dalgarno}, A. 1977, \apjs, 34, 405
1479:
1480: \bibitem[Black(1981)]{BLA81}
1481: Black, J.~H. 1981, \mnras, 197, 553
1482:
1483: \bibitem[Black(1991)]{bl91}
1484: Black, J.~H. 1991, in T.~W. Hartquist (ed.), {\em Molecular Astrophysics},
1485: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., p.~473
1486:
1487: \bibitem[Bray {et~al.}(2000)]{BBFT00}
1488: Bray, I., Burgess, A., Fursa, D.~V., \& Tully, J.~A. 2000, A\&AS, 148, 481
1489:
1490: \bibitem[{{Bromm} {et~al.}(2001){Bromm}, {Ferrara}, {Coppi}, \& {Larson}}]{BRO01}
1491: {Bromm}, V., {Ferrara}, A., {Coppi}, P.~S., \& {Larson}, R.~B. 2001, \mnras, 328, 969
1492:
1493: \bibitem[Bromm \& Loeb(2003)]{BL03}
1494: Bromm, V. \& Loeb, A. 2003, Nature, 425, 812
1495:
1496: \bibitem[{{Burton} {et~al.}(1990){Burton}, {Hollenbach}, \& {Tielens}}]{BUR90}
1497: {Burton}, M.~G., {Hollenbach}, D.~J., \& {Tielens}, A.~G.~G.~M. 1990, \apj,
1498: 365, 620
1499:
1500: \bibitem[Cazaux \& Spaans(2004)]{CAZ04}
1501: Cazaux, S., \& Spaans, M. 2004, \apj, 611, 40
1502:
1503: \bibitem[Cazaux \& Tielens(2004)]{ct04}
1504: Cazaux, S., \& Tielens, A.~G.~G.~M. 2004, \apj, 604, 222
1505:
1506: \bibitem[{{Cen}(1992)}]{CEN92}
1507: {Cen}, R. 1992, \apjs, 78, 341
1508:
1509: \bibitem[Dalgarno \& Lepp(1987)]{dl87}
1510: Dalgarno, A., \& Lepp, S. 1987, in Astrochemistry, ed.\ M.~S.\ Vardya
1511: \& S.~P.\ Tarafdar (Dordrecht: Reidel), 109
1512:
1513: \bibitem[Dalgarno, Yan \& Liu(1999)]{dyl99}
1514: Dalgarno, A., Yan, M., Liu, W. 1999, \apjs, 125, 237
1515:
1516: \bibitem[{de Jong}(1972)]{dj72}
1517: {de Jong}, T. 1972, A\&A, 20, 263
1518:
1519: \bibitem[Dove et~al.(1987)]{drcm87}
1520: Dove, J.~E., Rusk, A.~C.~M., Cribb, P.~H., \& Martin, P.~G.
1521: 1987, \apj, 318, 379
1522:
1523: \bibitem[Draine \& Bertoldi(1996)]{DRA96}
1524: Draine, B.~T., \& Bertoldi, F. 1996, \apj, 468, 269
1525:
1526: \bibitem[Dufton \& Kingston(1991)]{DUF91}
1527: Dufton, P.~L. \& Kingston, A.~E. 1991, \mnras, 248, 827
1528:
1529: \bibitem[Dunn(1968)]{DUN68}
1530: Dunn, G.~H. 1968, Phys.\ Rev., 172, 1
1531:
1532: \bibitem[Ferland et~al.(1992)]{FER92}
1533: Ferland, G.~J., Peterson, B.~M., Horne, K., Welsh, W.~F., \& Nahar, S.~N. 1992, \apj, 387, 95
1534:
1535: \bibitem[Field, Somerville \& Dressler(1966)]{fsd66}
1536: Field, G.~B., Somerville, W.~B., \& Dressler, K. 1966, ARA\&A, 4, 207
1537:
1538: \bibitem[Flower \& Launay(1977)]{FLO77}
1539: Flower, D.~R. \& Launay, J.~M. 1977, J.\ Phys.\ B, 10, 3673
1540:
1541: \bibitem[Flower et~al.(2000)]{FLO00}
1542: Flower, D.~R., {Le Bourlot}, J., {Pineau des For{\^ e}ts}, G., \& Roueff, E. 2000,
1543: \mnras, 314, 753
1544:
1545: \bibitem[Frebel, Johnson \& Bromm(2007)]{FJB07}
1546: Frebel, A., Johnson, J.~L., \& Bromm, V. 2007, MNRAS, accepted; astro-ph/0701395
1547:
1548: \bibitem[Furlanetto \& Loeb(2003)]{fl03}
1549: Furlanetto, S.~R., \& Loeb, A. 2003, \apj, 588, 18
1550:
1551: \bibitem[Galli \& Palla(1998)]{GP98}
1552: Galli, D., \& Palla, F. 1998, A\&A, 335, 403
1553:
1554: \bibitem[Gerlich(1982)]{ger82}
1555: Gerlich, D. 1982, in `Symposium on Atomic and Surface Physics',
1556: eds.\ Lindinger, W., Howorka, F., M\"ark, T.~D., (Dordrecht: Kluwer),
1557: p.\ 304
1558:
1559: \bibitem[Glover(2001)]{gl01}
1560: Glover, S.~C.~O. 2001, PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh
1561:
1562: \bibitem[Glover(2003)]{GLO03}
1563: Glover, S.~C.~O. 2003, \apj, 584, 331
1564:
1565: \bibitem[Glover(2007)]{GLO07}
1566: Glover, S.~C.~O. 2007, MNRAS, 379, 1352
1567:
1568: \bibitem[{{Glover} \& {Brand}(2003)}]{GB03}
1569: {Glover}, S.~C.~O. \& {Brand}, P.~W.~J.~L. 2003, \mnras, 340, 210
1570:
1571: \bibitem[Glover \& {Mac Low}(2007a)]{gm07a}
1572: Glover, S.~C.~O., \& {Mac Low}, M.-M. 2007a, \apjs, 169, 239
1573:
1574: \bibitem[Glover \& {Mac Low}(2007b)]{gm07b}
1575: Glover, S.~C.~O., \& {Mac Low}, M.-M. 2007b, \apj, 659, 1317
1576:
1577: \bibitem[Glover \& Savin(2006)]{GS06}
1578: Glover, S.~C.~O. \& Savin, D.~W. 2006, Phil.\ Trans.\ Roy.\ Soc.\ Lon. A,
1579: 364, 3107
1580:
1581: \bibitem[Glover \& Savin(2007)]{GS07}
1582: Glover, S.~C.~O. \& Savin, D.~W. 2007, in preparation
1583:
1584: \bibitem[{{Glover} {et~al.}(2006){Glover}, {Savin}, \& {Jappsen}}]{GLO06}
1585: {Glover}, S.~C.~O., {Savin}, D.~W., \& {Jappsen}, A.-K. 2006, \apj, 640, 553
1586:
1587: \bibitem[Goldsmith \& Langer(1978)]{gl78}
1588: Goldsmith, P., \& Langer, W.~D. 1978, \apj, 222, 881
1589:
1590: \bibitem[Habing(1968)]{habing68}
1591: Habing, H.~J. 1968, Bull.\ Astron.\ Inst.\ Netherlands, 19, 421
1592:
1593: \bibitem[Hasegawa, Herbst \& Leung(1992)]{HAS92}
1594: Hasegawa, T.~I., Herbst, E., \& Leung, C.~M. 1992, \apjs, 82, 167
1595:
1596: \bibitem[Heger \& Woosley(2002)]{hw02}
1597: Heger, A., \& Woosley, S.~E. 2002, \apj, 567, 532
1598:
1599: \bibitem[Hern\'{a}ndez-Monteagudo {et~al.}(2006)]{hrs06}
1600: Hern\'{a}ndez-Monteagudo, C., Rubino-Martin, J.~A. \& Sunyaev, R.~A. 2006, astro-ph/0611497
1601:
1602: \bibitem[Hern\'{a}ndez-Monteagudo {et~al.}(2007)]{hmh07}
1603: Hern\'{a}ndez-Monteagudo, C., Haiman, Z., Jimenez, R., \& Verde, L. 2007, 660, L85
1604:
1605: \bibitem[Hirashita \& Ferrara(2002)]{HIR02}
1606: Hirashita, H., \& Ferrara, A. 2002, \mnras, 337, 921
1607:
1608: \bibitem[Hollenbach \& McKee(1979)]{HOL79}
1609: Hollenbach, D., \& McKee, C.~F. 1979, \apjs, 41, 555
1610:
1611: \bibitem[Hollenbach \& McKee(1989)]{HOL89}
1612: Hollenbach, D., \& McKee, C.~F. 1989, \apj, 342, 306
1613:
1614: \bibitem[Hosokawa \& Inutsuka(2006)]{hi06}
1615: Hosokawa, T., \& Inutsuka, S. 2006, \apj, 646, 240
1616:
1617: \bibitem[Hummer \& Storey(1998)]{hs98}
1618: Hummer, D.~G., \& Storey, P.J. 1998, \mnras, 297, 1073
1619:
1620: \bibitem[Janev et~al.(1987)]{JAN87}
1621: Janev, R.~K., Langer, W.~D., Evans, K., \& Post, D.~E. 1987, Elementary
1622: Processes in Hydrogen-Helium Plasmas, Springer
1623:
1624: \bibitem[Jappsen {et~al.}(2007)]{jgkm07}
1625: Jappsen, A.-K., Glover, S.~C.~O., Klessen, R.~S., \& {Mac Low}, M.-M. 2007,
1626: \apj, 660, 1332. (Paper II)
1627:
1628: \bibitem[Johnson et~al.(1987)]{JOH87}
1629: Johnson, C.~T., Burke, P.~G., \& Kingston, A.~E. 1987, J.\ Phys.\ B, 20, 2553
1630:
1631: \bibitem[Julienne, Krauss \& Donn(1971)]{JUL71}
1632: Julienne, P.~S., Krauss, M., \& Donn, B. 1971, \apj, 170, 65
1633:
1634: \bibitem[Karpas, Anicich \& Huntress(1979)]{KAR79}
1635: Karpas, Z., Anicich, V., \& Huntress, W.~T. 1979, J.\ Chem.\ Phys, 70, 2877
1636:
1637: \bibitem[Keenan {\em et~al.}(1986)]{KEE86}
1638: Keenan, F.~P., Lennon, D.~J., Johnson, C.~T. \& Kingston, A.~E. 1986, \mnras,
1639: 220, 571
1640:
1641: \bibitem[Kimura et~al.(1993)]{kldd93}
1642: Kimura, M., Lane, N.~F., Dalgarno, A., \& Dixson, R.~G. 1993, \apj, 405, 801
1643:
1644: \bibitem[Kimura et al.(1993)]{kd93}
1645: Kimura, M., Dalgarno, A., Chantranupong, L., Li, Y., Hirsch, G.,
1646: \& Buenker, R.~J. 1993, \apj, 417, 812
1647:
1648: \bibitem[Kingdon \& Ferland(1996)]{KIN96}
1649: Kingdon, J.~B. \& Ferland, G.~J. 1996, \apjs, 106, 205
1650:
1651: \bibitem[Langer(1978)]{lang78}
1652: Langer, W.~D. 1978, ApJ, 225, 860
1653:
1654: \bibitem[Launay et~al.(1991)]{LAU91}
1655: Launay, J.~M., Le~Dourneuf, M., \& Zeippen, C.~J. 1991, A\&A, 252,
1656: 842
1657:
1658: \bibitem[{{Le Bourlot} {et~al.}(1999){Le Bourlot}, {Pineau des For{\^ e}ts},
1659: \& {Flower}}]{BOU99}
1660: {Le Bourlot}, J., {Pineau des For{\^ e}ts}, G., \& {Flower}, D.~R. 1999, \mnras,
1661: 305, 802
1662:
1663: \bibitem[Lepp \& Shull(1983)]{LEP83}
1664: Lepp, S., \& Shull, J.~M. 1983, \apj, 270, 578
1665:
1666: \bibitem[Lepp, Stancil, \& Dalgarno(2002)]{lsd02}
1667: Lepp, S.~H., Stancil, P.~C., \& Dalgarno, A. 2002, J.\ Phys.\ B,
1668: 35, 57
1669:
1670: \bibitem[{Le Teuff}, Millar \& Markwick(2000)]{TEU00}
1671: {Le Teuff}, Y.~H., Millar, T.~J., \& Markwick, A.~J. 2000, A\&AS, 146, 157
1672:
1673: \bibitem[Lipovka, N\'u\~nez-L\'opez, \& Avila-Reese(2005)]{lna05}
1674: Lipovka, A., N\'u\~nez-L\'opez, R., \& Avila-Reese, V. 2005, \mnras, 361, 850
1675:
1676: \bibitem[Lotz(1967)]{lotz67}
1677: Lotz, W. 1967, ApJS, 14, 207
1678:
1679: \bibitem[Mac Low \& Shull(1986)]{MAC86}
1680: {Mac Low}, M.-M., \& Shull, J.~M. 1986, \apj, 302, 585
1681:
1682: \bibitem[{{Machacek} {et~al.}(2001){Machacek}, {Bryan}, \& {Abel}}]{MAC01}
1683: {Machacek}, M.~E., {Bryan}, G.~L., \& {Abel}, T. 2001, \apj, 548, 509
1684:
1685: \bibitem[{{Machacek} {et~al.}(2003){Machacek}, {Bryan}, \& {Abel}}]{MAC03}
1686: {Machacek}, M.~E., {Bryan}, G.~L., \& {Abel}, T. 2003, \mnras, 338, 273
1687:
1688: \bibitem[Martin, Schwarz \& Mandy(1996)]{MAR96}
1689: Martin, P.~G., Schwarz, D.~H., \& Mandy, M.~E. 1996, \apj, 461, 265
1690:
1691: \bibitem[Martin, Keogh \& Mandy(1998)]{MAR98}
1692: Martin, P.~G., Keogh W.~J., \& Mandy, M.~E. 1998, \apj, 499, 793
1693:
1694: \bibitem[Mathis, Rumpl \& Nordsieck(1977)]{MAT77}
1695: Mathis, J.~S., Rumpl, W., \& Nordsieck, K.~H. 1977, \apj, 217, 425
1696:
1697: \bibitem[{{Matsuda} {et~al.}(1969){Matsuda}, {Sat{\= o}}, \& {Takeda}}]{MAT69}
1698: {Matsuda}, T., {Sat{\= o}}, H., \& {Takeda}, H. 1969, Prog.\ Th.\ Phys., 42, 219
1699:
1700: \bibitem[Mazzotta et~al.(1998)]{mmcv98}
1701: Mazzotta, P., Mazzitelli, G., Colafrancesco, S., \& Vittorio, N. 1998, A\&AS, 133, 403
1702:
1703: \bibitem[McCall et~al.(2003)]{mcc03}
1704: McCall, B.~J., {et~al.} 2003, Nature, 422, 500
1705:
1706: \bibitem[Mielke et~al.(1994)]{mlts94}
1707: Mielke, S.~L., Lynch, G.~C., Truhlar, D.~G., \& Schwenke, D.~W. 1994,
1708: J.\ Phys.\ Chem., 98, 8000
1709:
1710: \bibitem[Mizusawa, Omukai \& Nishi(2005)]{mon05}
1711: Mizusawa, H., Omukai, K., \& Nishi, R. 2005, PASJ, 57, 951
1712:
1713: \bibitem[Moseley et~al.(1970)]{MOS70}
1714: Moseley, J., Aberth, W., \& Peterson, J.~R. 1970, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett., 24, 435
1715:
1716: \bibitem[Nahar(1995)]{n95}
1717: Nahar, S.~N. 1995, \apjs, 101, 423
1718:
1719: \bibitem[Nahar(1996)]{n96}
1720: Nahar, S.~N. 1996, \apjs, 106, 213
1721:
1722: \bibitem[Nahar(1999)]{NAH99}
1723: Nahar, S.~N. 1999, \apjs, 120, 131
1724:
1725: \bibitem[Nahar(2000)]{NAH00}
1726: Nahar, S.~N. 2000, \apjs, 126, 537
1727:
1728: \bibitem[Nahar \& Pradhan(1997)]{NAH97}
1729: Nahar, S.~N. \& Pradhan, A.~K. 1997, \apjs, 111, 339
1730:
1731: \bibitem[Neufeld \& Kaufman(1993)]{nk93}
1732: Neufeld, D.~A., \& Kaufman, M.~J. 1993, \apj, 418, 263
1733:
1734: \bibitem[Neufeld, Lepp \& Melnick(1995)]{nlm95}
1735: Neufeld, D.~A., Lepp., S., \& Melnick, G.~J. 1995, \apjs, 100, 132
1736:
1737: \bibitem[Nozawa {et~al.}(2003)]{NOZ03}
1738: Nozawa, T., Kozasa, T., Umeda, H., Maeda, K., \& Nomoto, K. 2003, \apj, 598, 785
1739:
1740: \bibitem[Oh(2002)]{oh02}
1741: Oh, S.~P. 2002, \mnras, 336, 1021
1742:
1743: \bibitem[Omukai {et~al.}(2005)]{OMU05}
1744: Omukai, K., Tsuribe, T., Schneider, R., \& Ferrara, A. 2005, \apj, 626, 627
1745:
1746: \bibitem[O'Neil \& Reinhardt(1978)]{or78}
1747: O'Neil, S.~V., \& Reinhardt, W.~P. 1978, J.\ Chem.\ Phys., 69, 2126
1748:
1749: \bibitem[Osterbrock(1989)]{os89}
1750: Osterbrock, D.~E. 1989, Astrophysics of Gaseous Nebulae and Active
1751: Galactic Nuclei, University Science Books.
1752:
1753: \bibitem[{{Peebles} \& {Dicke}(1968)}]{PEE68}
1754: {Peebles}, P.~J.~E. \& {Dicke}, R.~H. 1968, \apj, 154, 891
1755:
1756: \bibitem[Pequignot(1990)]{PEQ90}
1757: Pequignot, D. 1990, A\&A, 231, 499
1758:
1759: \bibitem[Pequignot(1996)]{PEQ96}
1760: Pequignot, D. 1996, A\&A, 313, 1026
1761:
1762: \bibitem[Poulaert et~al.(1978)]{POU78}
1763: Poulaert, G., Brouillard, F., Claeys, W., McGowan, J.~W.,
1764: \& {Van Wassenhove}, G. 1978, J.\ Phys.\ B, 11, L671
1765:
1766: \bibitem[Rae et~al.(2004)]{RAE04}
1767: Rae, J.~G.~L., Hartquist, T.~W., Lepp, S.~H., O'Neill, P.~T.,
1768: \& Williams, D.~A. 2004, A\&A, 413, 1
1769:
1770: \bibitem[Ramaker \& Peek(1976)]{RAM76}
1771: Ramaker, D.~E., \& Peek, J.~M. 1976, Phys.\ Rev.\ A, 13, 58
1772:
1773: \bibitem[Roueff(1990)]{ROU90}
1774: Roueff, E. 1990, A\&A, 234, 567
1775:
1776: \bibitem[Roueff \& {Le Bourlot}(1990)]{RLB90}
1777: Roueff, E. \& {Le Bourlot}, J. 1990, A\&A, 236, 515
1778:
1779: \bibitem[Santoro \& Shull(2006)]{SAN06}
1780: Santoro, F. \& Shull, J.~M. 2006, \apj, 643, 26
1781:
1782: \bibitem[{{Saslaw} \& {Zipoy}(1967)}]{SAS67}
1783: {Saslaw}, W.~C. \& {Zipoy}, D. 1967, Nature, 216, 976
1784:
1785: \bibitem[Savin(2002)]{sav02}
1786: Savin, D.~W. 2002, \apj, 566, 599
1787:
1788: \bibitem[Savin et~al.(2004)]{SAV04}
1789: Savin, D.~W., Krstic, P.~S., Haiman, Z., \& Stancil, P.~C. 2004, \apj,
1790: 606, L167; erratum \apj, 607, L147
1791:
1792: \bibitem[Schneider et~al.(1994)]{SCH94}
1793: Schneider, I.~F., Dulieu, O., Giusti-Suzor, A., \& Roueff, E. 1994, \apj,
1794: 424, 983; erratum \apj, 486, 580
1795:
1796: \bibitem[Schneider et~al.(2002)]{SCH02}
1797: Schneider, R., Ferrara, A., Natarajan, P. \& Omukai, K. 2002, \apj, 571, 30
1798:
1799: \bibitem[Schneider, Ferrara \& Salvaterra(2004)]{SCH04}
1800: Schneider, R., Ferrara, A., \& Salvaterra, R. 2004, \mnras, 351, 1379
1801:
1802: \bibitem[Schneider et~al.(2006)]{SCH06}
1803: Schneider, R., Omukai, K., Inoue, A., \& Ferrara, A., 2006, \mnras, 369, 1437
1804:
1805: \bibitem[Schroder et~al.(1991)]{SCH91}
1806: Schroder, K., Staemmler, V., Smith, M.~D., Flower, D.~R., \& Jaquet, R. 1991,
1807: J.\ Phys.\ B, 24, 2487
1808:
1809: \bibitem[Sembach et~al.(2000)]{sem00}
1810: Sembach, K.~R., Howk, J.~C., Ryans, R.~S.~I., \& Keenan, F.~P. 2000, \apj, 528, 310
1811:
1812: \bibitem[Shapiro \& Kang(1987)]{SHA87}
1813: Shapiro, P.~R., \& Kang, H. 1987, \apj, 318, 32
1814:
1815: \bibitem[Shavitt(1959)]{s59}
1816: Shavitt, I. 1959, J.\ Chem.\ Phys., 31, 1359
1817:
1818: \bibitem[Shull(1978)]{sh78}
1819: Shull, J.~M. 1978, \apj, 219, 877
1820:
1821: \bibitem[Shull \& {van Steenberg}(1985)]{svs85}
1822: Shull, J.~M., \& {van Steenberg}, M.~E. 1985, \apj, 298, 268
1823:
1824: \bibitem[Silva \& Viegas(2002)]{SIL02}
1825: Silva, A.~I., \& Viegas, S.~M. 2002, \mnras, 329, 135
1826:
1827: \bibitem[Smith \& Zweibel(1976)]{SMI76}
1828: Smith, W.~H., \& Zweibel, E.~G. 1976, \apj, 207, 758
1829:
1830: \bibitem[Stancil, Lepp, \& Dalgarno(1998)]{sld98}
1831: Stancil, P.~C., Lepp, S., \& Dalgarno, A. 1998, \apj, 509, 1
1832:
1833: \bibitem[Stancil et al.(1998)]{STA98}
1834: Stancil, P.~C., Havener, C.~C., Krstic, P.~S., Schultz, D.~R., Kimura, M.,
1835: Gu, J.-P., Hirsch, G., Buenker, R.~J., \& Zygelman, B. 1998, \apj, 502, 1006
1836:
1837: \bibitem[Stancil et al.(1999)]{STA99}
1838: Stancil, P.~C., Schultz, D.~R., Kimura, M., Gu, J.-P., Hirsch, G., \&
1839: Buenker, R.~J. 1999, A\&AS, 140, 225
1840:
1841: \bibitem[Stecher \& Williams(1967)]{sw67}
1842: Stecher, T.~P., \& Williams, D.~A. 1967, \apj, 149, L29
1843:
1844: \bibitem[Stibbe \& Tennyson(1999)]{STI99}
1845: Stibbe, D.~T., \& Tennyson, J. 1999, \apj, 513, L147
1846:
1847: \bibitem[Sutherland \& Dopita(1993)]{sd93}
1848: Sutherland, R.~S., \& Dopita, M.~A. 1993, \apjs, 88, 253
1849:
1850: \bibitem[{{Tegmark} {et~al.}(1997){Tegmark}, {Silk}, {Rees}, {Blanchard}, {Abel}, \& {Palla}}]{TEG97}
1851: {Tegmark}, M., {Silk}, J., {Rees}, M.~J., Blanchard, A., Abel, T., \& Palla, F.
1852: 1997, \apj, 474, 1
1853:
1854: \bibitem[Todini \& Ferrara(2001)]{TOD01}
1855: Todini, P., \& Ferrara, A. 2001, \mnras, 325, 726
1856:
1857: \bibitem[Tumlinson, Venkatesan \& Shull(2004)]{tvs04}
1858: Tumlinson, J., Venkatesan, A., \& Shull, J.~M. 2004, \apj, 612, 602
1859:
1860: \bibitem[Venkatesan, Nath \& Shull(2006)]{VEN06}
1861: Venkatesan, A., Nath, B.~B., \& Shull, J.~M. 2006, \apj, 640, 31
1862:
1863: \bibitem[Verner et al.(1996)]{VER96}
1864: Verner, D.~A., Ferland, G.~J., Korista, K.~T. \& Yakovlev, D.~G. 1996, \apj, 465, 487
1865:
1866: \bibitem[Voronov(1997)]{VOR97}
1867: Voronov, G.~S. 1997, ADNDT, 65, 1
1868:
1869: \bibitem[Wagner \& Graff(1987)]{WAG87}
1870: Wagner, A.~F., \& Graff, M.~M. 1987, \apj, 317, 423
1871:
1872: \bibitem[Wakker(2006)]{WAK06}
1873: Wakker, B.~P. 2006, \apjs, 163, 282
1874:
1875: \bibitem[Weingartner \& Draine(2001a)]{WEI01a}
1876: Weingartner, J.~C. \& Draine, B.~T. 2001a, \apj, 563, 842
1877:
1878: \bibitem[Weingartner \& Draine(2001b)]{WEI01b}
1879: Weingartner, J.~C. \& Draine, B.~T. 2001b, \apjs, 134, 263
1880:
1881: \bibitem[Wilms, Allen \& McCray(2002)]{wam02}
1882: Wilms, J., Allen, A., \& McCray, R. 2002, \apj, 542, 914
1883:
1884: \bibitem[Wilson \& Bell(2002)]{WIL02}
1885: Wilson, N.~J. \& Bell, K.~L. 2002, \mnras, 337, 1027
1886:
1887: \bibitem[Wishart(1979)]{WIS79}
1888: Wishart, A.~W. 1979, \mnras, 187, 59P
1889:
1890: \bibitem[Wolfire {\em et~al.}(1995)]{WOL95}
1891: Wolfire, M.~G., Hollenbach, D., McKee, C.~F., Tielens, A.~G.~G.~M.,
1892: \& Bakes, E.~L.~O. 1995, \apj, 443, 152
1893:
1894: \bibitem[Wolfire {\em et~al.}(2003)]{WOL03}
1895: Wolfire, M.~G., McKee, C.~F., Hollenbach, D., \& Tielens, A.~G.~G.~M. 2003, \apj,
1896: 587, 278
1897:
1898: \bibitem[Yan, Sadeghpour \& Dalgarno(1998)]{ysd98}
1899: Yan, M., Sadeghpour, H.~R., \& Dalgarno, A. 1998, \apj, 496, 1044
1900:
1901: \bibitem[{{Yoshida} {et~al.}(2003){Yoshida}, {Abel}, {Hernquist}, \& {Sugiyama}}]{YOS03}
1902: {Yoshida}, N., {Abel}, T., {Hernquist}, L., \& {Sugiyama}, N. 2003, \apj, 592,
1903: 645
1904:
1905: \bibitem[Zhao {\em et~al.}(2004)]{z04}
1906: Zhao, L.~B., Stancil, P.~C., Gu, J.~P., Liebermann, H.-P., Li, Y.,
1907: Funke, P., Buenker, R.~J., Zygelman, B., Kimura, M., \& Dalgarno, A.
1908: 2004, \apj, 615, 1063
1909:
1910: \bibitem[Zygelman {\em et~al.}(1989)]{z89}
1911: Zygelman, B., Dalgarno, A., Kimura, M., \& Lane, N.~F. 1989, Phys.\ Rev.\ A,
1912: 40, 2340
1913:
1914: \end{thebibliography}
1915:
1916: \begin{deluxetable}{llllc}
1917: \tablewidth{0pt}
1918: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
1919: \tablecaption{List of the collisional gas-phase reactions in our
1920: chemical model. \label{tab:chem_gas_coll}}
1921: \tablehead{No.\ & Reaction & Rate coefficient $({\rm cm}^{3} \: {\rm s}^{-1})$ &
1922: & Ref.\ }
1923: \startdata
1924: & & & & \\
1925: 1 & $\mH + \me \rightarrow \Hm + \gamma$ &
1926: $k_{1} = {\rm dex}[-17.845 + 0.762 \log{T} + 0.1523 (\log{T})^{2}$ & & 1 \\
1927: & & $\phantom{k_{1}= {\rm dex}[} \mbox{} - 0.03274 (\log{T})^{3}] $ &
1928: $T \le 6000 \: {\rm K}$ & \\
1929: & & & & \\
1930: & & $ \phantom{k_{1}} = {\rm dex}[-16.420 + 0.1998 (\log{T})^{2}$ & & \\
1931: & & $ \phantom{k_{1} = {\rm dex}} \mbox{}-5.447 \times 10^{-3} (\log{T})^{4}$ & & \\
1932: & & $ \phantom{k_{1} = {\rm dex}} \mbox{}+ 4.0415 \times 10^{-5} (\log{T})^{6}]$
1933: & $T > 6000 \: {\rm K}$ & \\
1934: & & & & \\
1935: \hline
1936: & & & & \\
1937: 2 & $\Hm + \mH \rightarrow \mHt + \me$ &
1938: $k_{2} = 1.5 \times 10^{-9}$ & $T \le 300 \: {\rm K}$& 2 \\
1939: & & & & \\
1940: & & $\phantom{k_{2}} = 4.0 \times 10^{-9} T^{-0.17}$ & $T > 300 \: {\rm K}$ & \\
1941: & & & & \\
1942: \hline
1943: & & & & \\
1944: 3 & $\mH + \Hp \rightarrow \mHtp + \gamma$ &
1945: $k_{3} = {\rm dex}[-19.38 - 1.523 \log{T} $ & & 3 \\
1946: & & $\phantom{k_{3}} \mbox{}+1.118 (\log{T})^{2} - 0.1269 (\log{T})^{3}]$ & & \\
1947: & & & & \\
1948: \hline
1949: & & & & \\
1950: 4 & $\mH + \mHtp \rightarrow \mHt + \Hp$ & $k_{4} = 6.4 \times 10^{-10}$ & & 4 \\
1951: & & & & \\
1952: \hline
1953: & & & & \\
1954: 5 & $\Hm + \Hp \rightarrow \mH + \mH$ &
1955: $k_{5} = 5.7 \times 10^{-6} T^{-0.5} + 6.3 \times 10^{-8} $ & & 5 \\
1956: & & $\phantom{k_{5}} \mbox{} - 9.2 \times 10^{-11} T^{0.5} + 4.4 \times 10^{-13} T$ & \\
1957: & & & & \\
1958: \hline
1959: & & & & \\
1960: 6 & $\mHtp + \me \rightarrow \mH + \mH$ & $k_{6} =
1961: 1.0\times 10^{-8}$ & $T \le 617 \: {\rm K}$ & 6 \\
1962: & & & & \\
1963: & & $\phantom{k_{6}} = 1.32 \times 10^{-6} T^{-0.76}$ & $T > 617 \: {\rm K}$ & \\
1964: & & & & \\
1965: \hline
1966: & & & & \\
1967: 7 & $\mHt + \Hp \rightarrow \mHtp + \mH$ &
1968: $k_{7} = [- 3.3232183 \times 10^{-7}$ & & 7 \\
1969: & & $\phantom{k_{7}=} \mbox{} + 3.3735382 \times 10^{-7} \ln{T}$ & & \\
1970: & & $\phantom{k_{7}=} \mbox{} - 1.4491368 \times 10^{-7} (\ln{T})^2$ & & \\
1971: & & $\phantom{k_{7}=} \mbox{} + 3.4172805 \times 10^{-8} (\ln{T})^3$ & & \\
1972: & & $\phantom{k_{7}=} \mbox{} - 4.7813720 \times 10^{-9} (\ln{T})^4$ & & \\
1973: & & $\phantom{k_{7}=} \mbox{} + 3.9731542 \times 10^{-10} (\ln{T})^5$ & & \\
1974: & & $\phantom{k_{7}=} \mbox{} - 1.8171411 \times 10^{-11} (\ln{T})^6$ & & \\
1975: & & $\phantom{k_{7}=} \mbox{} + 3.5311932 \times 10^{-13} (\ln{T})^7 ]$ & & \\
1976: & & $\phantom{k_{7}=} \mbox{} \times \exp \left(\frac{-21237.15}{T} \right)$ & & \\
1977: & & & & \\
1978: \hline
1979: & & & & \\
1980: 8 & $\mHt + \me \rightarrow \mH + \mH + \me$ &
1981: $ k_{8} = 3.73 \times 10^{-9} T^{0.1121} \exp\left(\frac{-99430}{T}\right) $
1982: & & 8 \\
1983: & & & & \\
1984: \hline
1985: & & & & \\
1986: 9 & $\mHt + \mH \rightarrow \mH + \mH + \mH$ &
1987: $ k_{9} = 6.67 \times 10^{-12} T^{1/2} \exp \left[-(1+ \frac{63590}{T}) \right]$ & & 9 \\
1988: & & & & \\
1989: \hline
1990: & & & & \\
1991: 10 & $\mHt + \mHt \rightarrow \mHt + \mH + \mH$ &
1992: $k_{10} = \frac{5.996 \times 10^{-30} T^{4.1881}}{(1.0 + 6.761 \times 10^{-6} T)^{5.6881}}
1993: \exp \left(-\frac{54657.4}{T} \right)$ & & 10 \\
1994: & & & & \\
1995: \hline
1996: & & & & \\
1997: 11 & $\mH + \me \rightarrow \Hp + \me + \me$ &
1998: $k_{11} = \exp[-3.271396786 \times 10^{1}$ & & 11 \\
1999: & & $\phantom{k_{11}=} \mbox{} + 1.35365560 \times 10^{1} \ln T_{\rm e}$ & & \\
2000: & & $\phantom{k_{11}=} \mbox{} - 5.73932875 \times 10^{0} (\ln T_{\rm e})^{2}$ & & \\
2001: & & $\phantom{k_{11}=} \mbox{} + 1.56315498 \times 10^{0} (\ln T_{\rm e})^{3}$ & & \\
2002: & & $\phantom{k_{11}=} \mbox{} - 2.87705600 \times 10^{-1} (\ln T_{\rm e})^{4}$ & & \\
2003: & & $\phantom{k_{11}=} \mbox{} + 3.48255977 \times 10^{-2} (\ln T_{\rm e})^{5}$ & & \\
2004: & & $\phantom{k_{11}=} \mbox{} - 2.63197617 \times 10^{-3} (\ln T_{\rm e})^{6}$ & & \\
2005: & & $\phantom{k_{11}=} \mbox{} + 1.11954395\times 10^{-4} (\ln T_{\rm e})^{7}$ & & \\
2006: & & $\phantom{k_{11}=} \mbox{} - 2.03914985 \times 10^{-6} (\ln T_{\rm e})^{8}]$ & & \\
2007: & & & & \\
2008: \hline
2009: & & & & \\
2010: 12 & $\mD + \me \rightarrow \Dp + \me + \me$ & $k_{12} = k_{11}$ & & --- \\
2011: & & & & \\
2012: \hline
2013: & & & & \\
2014: 13 & $\Hp + \me \rightarrow \mH + \gamma$ &
2015: $k_{13, {\rm A}} = 1.269 \times 10^{-13} \left(\frac{315614}{T}\right)^{1.503}$ & Case A & 12 \\
2016: & & $\phantom{k_{13}=} \mbox{} \times
2017: [1.0+ \left(\frac{604625}{T}\right)^{0.470}]^{-1.923} $ & & \\
2018: & & $k_{13, {\rm B}} = 2.753 \times 10^{-14} \left(\frac{315614}{T}\right)^{1.500}$ & Case B & 12 \\
2019: & & $\phantom{k_{13}=} \mbox{} \times
2020: [1.0+ \left(\frac{115188}{T}\right)^{0.407}]^{-2.242} $ & & \\
2021: & & & & \\
2022: \hline
2023: & & & & \\
2024: 14 & $\Dp + \me \rightarrow \mD + \gamma$ & $k_{14} = k_{13}$ & & --- \\
2025: & & & & \\
2026: \hline
2027: & & & & \\
2028: 15 & $\Hm + \me \rightarrow \mH + \me + \me$ &
2029: $ k_{15} = \exp [-1.801849334 \times 10^{1}$ & & 11 \\
2030: & & $\phantom{k_{15}=} \mbox{} + 2.36085220 \times 10^{0} \ln T_{\rm e}$ & & \\
2031: & & $\phantom{k_{15}=} \mbox{} - 2.82744300 \times 10^{-1} (\ln T_{\rm e})^{2}$ & & \\
2032: & & $\phantom{k_{15}=} \mbox{} +1.62331664\times 10^{-2} (\ln T_{\rm e})^{3}$ & & \\
2033: & & $\phantom{k_{15}=} \mbox{} -3.36501203 \times 10^{-2} (\ln T_{\rm e})^{4}$ & & \\
2034: & & $\phantom{k_{15}=} \mbox{} +1.17832978\times 10^{-2} (\ln T_{\rm e})^{5}$ & & \\
2035: & & $\phantom{k_{15}=} \mbox{} -1.65619470\times 10^{-3} (\ln T_{\rm e})^{6}$ & & \\
2036: & & $\phantom{k_{15}=} \mbox{} +1.06827520\times 10^{-4} (\ln T_{\rm e})^{7}$ & & \\
2037: & & $\phantom{k_{15}=} \mbox{} -2.63128581\times 10^{-6} (\ln T_{\rm e})^{8} ]$ & & \\
2038: & & & & \\
2039: \hline
2040: & & & & \\
2041: 16 & $\Hm + \mH \rightarrow \mH + \mH + \me$ &
2042: $k_{16} = 2.5634 \times 10^{-9} T_{\rm e}^{1.78186}$ & $ T_{\rm e} \le 0.1 \: \rm{eV}$ & 11 \\
2043: & & & & \\
2044: & & $\phantom{k_{16}} = \exp[-2.0372609 \times 10^{1}$ & & \\
2045: & & $\phantom{k_{16}=} \mbox{}+1.13944933 \times 10^{0} \ln T_{\rm e}$ & & \\
2046: & & $\phantom{k_{16}=} \mbox{}-1.4210135 \times 10^{-1} (\ln T_{\rm e})^{2}$ & & \\
2047: & & $\phantom{k_{16}=} \mbox{}+8.4644554 \times 10^{-3} (\ln T_{\rm e})^{3}$ & & \\
2048: & & $\phantom{k_{16}=} \mbox{}-1.4327641 \times 10^{-3} (\ln T_{\rm e})^{4}$ & & \\
2049: & & $\phantom{k_{16}=} \mbox{}+2.0122503 \times 10^{-4} (\ln T_{\rm e})^{5}$ & & \\
2050: & & $\phantom{k_{16}=} \mbox{}+8.6639632 \times 10^{-5} (\ln T_{\rm e})^{6}$ & & \\
2051: & & $\phantom{k_{16}=} \mbox{}-2.5850097 \times 10^{-5} (\ln T_{\rm e})^{7}$ & & \\
2052: & & $\phantom{k_{16}=} \mbox{}+ 2.4555012\times 10^{-6} (\ln T_{\rm e})^{8}$ & & \\
2053: & & $\phantom{k_{16}=} \mbox{} -8.0683825\times 10^{-8} (\ln T_{\rm e})^{9}]$ &
2054: $T_{\rm e} > 0.1 \: \rm{eV}$ & \\
2055: & & & & \\
2056: \hline
2057: & & & & \\
2058: 17 & $\Hm + \Hp \rightarrow \mHtp + \me$ &
2059: $k_{17}= 6.9\times 10^{-9} T^{-0.35}$ & $T \le 8000 \: {\rm K}$ & 13 \\
2060: & & & & \\
2061: & & $\phantom{k_{17}} = 9.6 \times 10^{-7} T^{-0.90}$ & $T > 8000 \: {\rm K}$ & \\
2062: & & & & \\
2063: \hline
2064: & & & & \\
2065: 18 & $\mH + \Dp \rightarrow \mD + \Hp$ & $k_{18} = 2.06 \times 10^{-10} T^{0.396}
2066: \expf{-}{33}{T}$ & & 14 \\
2067: & & $\phantom{k_{18}=} \mbox{} + 2.03 \times 10^{-9} T^{-0.332}$ & & \\
2068: & & & & \\
2069: \hline
2070: & & & & \\
2071: 19 & $\mD + \Hp \rightarrow \mH + \Dp$ &
2072: $k_{19} = 2.0 \times 10^{-10} T^{0.402} \expf{-}{37.1}{T}$ & $T \le 2 \times 10^{5} \: {\rm K}$ & 14 \\
2073: & & $\phantom{k_{19} = } \mbox{} - 3.31 \times 10^{-17} T^{1.48}$ & & \\
2074: & & & & \\
2075: & & $\phantom{k_{19}} = 3.44 \times 10^{-10} T^{0.35}$ & $T > 2 \times 10^{5} \: {\rm K}$ & \\
2076: & & & & \\
2077: \hline
2078: & & & & \\
2079: 20 & $\mHt + \Dp \rightarrow \hd + \Hp$ &
2080: $k_{20} = \left[0.417 + 0.846 \log{T} - 0.137 (\log{T})^{2} \right] \times 10^{-9}$ & & 15 \\
2081: & & & & \\
2082: \hline
2083: & & & & \\
2084: 21 & $\hd + \Hp \rightarrow \mHt + \Dp$ & $k_{21} = 1.1 \times 10^{-9} \expf{-}{488}{T}$ & & 15 \\
2085: & & & & \\
2086: \hline
2087: & & & & \\
2088: 22 & $\mHt + \mD \rightarrow \hd + \mH$ &
2089: $k_{22} = 1.69 \times 10^{-10} \expf{-}{4680}{T}$ & $T \leq 200 \: {\rm K}$ & 16 \\
2090: & & & & \\
2091: & & $\phantom{k_{22}} =1.69 \times 10^{-10} \exp\left(-\frac{4680}{T} +
2092: \frac{198800}{T^{2}}\right)$ & $T > 200 \: {\rm K}$ & \\
2093: & & & & \\
2094: \hline
2095: & & & & \\
2096: 23 & $\hd + \mH \rightarrow \mD + \mHt$ &
2097: $k_{23} = 5.25 \times 10^{-11} \expf{-}{4430}{T}$ & $T \leq 200 \: {\rm K}$ & 17 \\
2098: & & & & \\
2099: & & $\phantom{k_{23}} = 5.25 \times 10^{-11} \exp\left(-\frac{4430}{T} + \frac{173900}{T^{2}}\right)$
2100: & $T > 200 \: {\rm K}$ & \\
2101: & & & & \\
2102: \hline
2103: & & & & \\
2104: 24 & $\He + \me \rightarrow \Hep + \me + \me$ &
2105: $k_{24} = \exp[-4.409864886 \times 10^{1}$ & & 11 \\
2106: & & $\phantom{k_{24} = } \mbox{} + 2.391596563 \times 10^{1} \ln T_{\rm e}$ & & \\
2107: & & $\phantom{k_{24} = } \mbox{} - 1.07532302 \times 10^{1} (\ln T_{\rm e})^{2}$ & & \\
2108: & & $\phantom{k_{24} = } \mbox{} + 3.05803875 \times 10^{0} (\ln T_{\rm e})^{3}$ & & \\
2109: & & $\phantom{k_{24} = } \mbox{} - 5.6851189 \times 10^{-1} (\ln T_{\rm e})^{4}$ & & \\
2110: & & $\phantom{k_{24} = } \mbox{} + 6.79539123 \times 10^{-2} (\ln T_{\rm e})^{5}$ & & \\
2111: & & $\phantom{k_{24} = } \mbox{} - 5.0090561 \times 10^{-3} (\ln T_{\rm e})^{6}$ & & \\
2112: & & $\phantom{k_{24} = } \mbox{} + 2.06723616\times 10^{-4} (\ln T_{\rm e})^{7}$ & & \\
2113: & & $\phantom{k_{24} = } \mbox{} - 3.64916141 \times 10^{-6} (\ln T_{\rm e})^{8}]$ & & \\
2114: & & & & \\
2115: \hline
2116: & & & & \\
2117: 25 & $\Hep + \me \rightarrow \He + \gamma$ &
2118: $k_{25, {\rm rr, A}} = 10^{-11} T^{-0.5} \left[12.72 - 1.615 \log{T} \right. $ & Case A & 18 \\
2119: & & $\left. \phantom{k_{25, {\rm rr, A}} = } \mbox{} - 0.3162 (\log{T})^{2} + 0.0493 (\log{T})^{3}\right]$ & & \\
2120: & & & & \\
2121: & & $k_{25, {\rm rr, B}} = 10^{-11} T^{-0.5} \left[11.19 - 1.676 \log{T} \right. $ & Case B & 18 \\
2122: & & $\left. \phantom{k_{25, {\rm rr, A}} = } \mbox{} - 0.2852 (\log{T})^{2} + 0.04433 (\log{T})^{3} \right]$ & & \\
2123: & & & & \\
2124: & & $k_{25, {\rm di}} = 1.9 \times 10^{-3} T^{-1.5} \expf{-}{473421}{T}$ & & \\
2125: & & $\phantom{k_{25, {\rm di}} = } \mbox{} \times \left[1.0 + 0.3 \expf{-}{94684}{T} \right] $ & & 19 \\
2126: & & & & \\
2127: \hline
2128: & & & & \\
2129: 26 & $\Hep + \mH \rightarrow \He + \Hp$ &
2130: $k_{26} = 1.25 \times 10^{-15} \left(\frac{T}{300}\right)^{0.25}$ & & 20 \\
2131: & & & & \\
2132: \hline
2133: & & & & \\
2134: 27 & $\He + \Hp \rightarrow \Hep + \mH$ &
2135: $k_{27} = 1.26 \times 10^{-9} T^{-0.75} \expf{-}{127500}{T}$ & $ T \leq 10000 \: {\rm K}$ & 21 \\
2136: & & & & \\
2137: & & $\phantom{k_{27}} = 4.0 \times 10^{-37} T^{4.74}$ & $T > 10000 \: {\rm K}$ & \\
2138: & & & & \\
2139: \hline
2140: & & & & \\
2141: 28 & $\Hep + \mD \rightarrow \He + \Dp$ & $k_{28} = k_{26}$ & & --- \\
2142: & & & & \\
2143: \hline
2144: & & & & \\
2145: 29 & $\He + \Dp \rightarrow \Hep + \mD$ & $k_{29} = k_{27}$ & & --- \\
2146: & & & & \\
2147: \hline
2148: & & & & \\
2149: 30 & $\cp + \me \rightarrow \mC + \gamma$ &
2150: $k_{30} = 4.67 \times 10^{-12} \left(\frac{T}{300}\right)^{-0.6}$ & $T \le 7950 \: {\rm K}$ & 22 \\
2151: & & & & \\
2152: & & $\phantom{k_{30} } =1.23 \times 10^{-17} \left(\frac{T}{300}\right)^{2.49}
2153: \exp \left(\frac{21845.6}{T} \right)$ & $ 7950 \: {\rm K} < T \le 21140 \: {\rm K}$ & \\
2154: & & & & \\
2155: & & $\phantom{k_{30}} = 9.62 \times 10^{-8} \left(\frac{T}{300}\right)^{-1.37}
2156: \exp \left(\frac{-115786.2}{T} \right)$ & $T > 21140 \: {\rm K}$ & \\
2157: & & & & \\
2158: \hline
2159: & & & & \\
2160: 31 & $\sip + \me \rightarrow \mSi + \gamma$ &
2161: $k_{31} = 7.5 \times 10^{-12} \left(\frac{T}{300}\right)^{-0.55}$ & $T \le 2000 \: {\rm K}$ & 23 \\
2162: & & & & \\
2163: & & $\phantom{k_{31}}= 4.86 \times 10^{-12} \left(\frac{T}{300}\right)^{-0.32}$ &
2164: $2000 \: {\rm K} < T \le 10^{4} \: {\rm K}$ & \\
2165: & & & & \\
2166: & & $\phantom{k_{31}}= 9.08 \times 10^{-14} \left(\frac{T}{300}\right)^{0.818}$ &
2167: $T > 10^{4} \: {\rm K}$ & \\
2168: & & & & \\
2169: \hline
2170: & & & & \\
2171: 32 & $\op + \me \rightarrow \mO + \gamma$ &
2172: $k_{32} = 1.30 \times 10^{-10} T^{-0.64}$ & $T \le 400 \: {\rm K}$ & 24 \\
2173: & & & & \\
2174: & & $\phantom{k_{32}} = 1.41 \times 10^{-10} T^{-0.66} + 7.4 \times 10^{-4} T^{-1.5}$ & & \\
2175: & & $\phantom{k_{32}=} \mbox{} \times \exp \left(-\frac{175000}{T}\right) [1.0 + 0.062 \times
2176: \exp \left(-\frac{145000}{T}\right) ]$ & $T > 400 \: {\rm K}$ & \\
2177: & & & & \\
2178: \hline
2179: & & & & \\
2180: 33 & $\mC + \me \rightarrow \cp + \me + \me$ &
2181: $k_{33} = 6.85 \times 10^{-8} (0.193 + u)^{-1} u^{0.25} e^{-u}$ & $u = 11.26 / T_{\rm e}$ & 25 \\
2182: & & & & \\
2183: \hline
2184: & & & & \\
2185: 34 & $\mSi + \me \rightarrow \sip + \me + \me$ &
2186: $k_{34} = 1.88 \times 10^{-7} (1.0 + u^{0.5}) (0.376 + u)^{-1} u^{0.25} e^{-u}$ &
2187: $ u = 8.2 / T_{\rm e}$ & 25 \\
2188: & & & & \\
2189: \hline
2190: & & & & \\
2191: 35 & $\mO + \me \rightarrow \op + \me + \me$ &
2192: $k_{35} = 3.59 \times 10^{-8} (0.073 + u)^{-1} u^{0.34} e^{-u}$ & $u = 13.6 / T_{\rm e}$ & 25 \\
2193: & & & & \\
2194: \hline
2195: & & & & \\
2196: 36 & $\op + \mH \rightarrow \mO + \Hp$ &
2197: $ k_{36} = 4.99 \times 10^{-11} T^{0.405} +
2198: 7.54 \times 10^{-10} T^{-0.458} $ & & 26 \\
2199: & & & & \\
2200: \hline
2201: & & & & \\
2202: 37 & $\mO + \Hp \rightarrow \op + \mH$ &
2203: $k_{37} = [1.08 \times 10^{-11} T^{0.517} $ & & 27 \\
2204: & & $\phantom{k_{37} = } \mbox{} + 4.00 \times 10^{-10} T^{0.00669}] \exp
2205: \left(-\frac{227}{T}\right)$ & & \\
2206: & & & & \\
2207: \hline
2208: & & & & \\
2209: 38 & $\mO + \Hep \rightarrow \op + \He$ &
2210: $k_{38} = 4.991 \times 10^{-15} \left(\frac{T}{10000}\right)^{0.3794}
2211: \expf{-}{T}{1121000}$ & & 28 \\
2212: & & $\phantom{k_{38} = } \mbox{} + 2.780 \times 10^{-15}
2213: \left(\frac{T}{10000}\right)^{-0.2163} \expf{}{T}{815800}$ & & \\
2214: & & & & \\
2215: \hline
2216: & & & & \\
2217: 39 & $\mC + \Hp \rightarrow \cp + \mH$ & $k_{39} = 3.9 \times 10^{-16} T^{0.213}$ & & 27 \\
2218: & & & & \\
2219: \hline
2220: & & & & \\
2221: 40 & $\cp + \mH \rightarrow \mC + \Hp$ & $k_{40} = 6.08 \times 10^{-14}
2222: \left(\frac{T}{10000}\right)^{1.96} \expf{-}{170000}{T}$ & & 27 \\
2223: & & & & \\
2224: \hline
2225: & & & & \\
2226: 41 & $\mC + \Hep \rightarrow \cp + \He$ &
2227: $k_{41} = 8.58 \times 10^{-17} T^{0.757}$ & $T \leq 200 \: {\rm K}$ & 29 \\
2228: & & & & \\
2229: & & $\phantom{k_{41}} = 3.25 \times 10^{-17} T^{0.968}$ & $200 < T \leq 2000 \: {\rm K}$ & \\
2230: & & & & \\
2231: & & $\phantom{k_{41}} = 2.77 \times 10^{-19} T^{1.597}$ & $T > 2000 \: {\rm K}$ & \\
2232: & & & & \\
2233: \hline
2234: & & & & \\
2235: 42 & $\mSi + \Hp \rightarrow \sip + \mH$ &
2236: $k_{42} = 5.88 \times 10^{-13} T^{0.848}$ & $T \le 10^{4} \: {\rm K}$ & 30 \\
2237: & & & & \\
2238: & & $\phantom{k_{42}} = 1.45 \times 10^{-13} T$ & $T > 10^{4} \: {\rm K}$ & \\
2239: & & & & \\
2240: \hline
2241: & & & & \\
2242: 43 & $\mSi + \Hep \rightarrow \sip + \He$ & $k_{43} = 3.3 \times 10^{-9}$ & & 31 \\
2243: & & & & \\
2244: \hline
2245: & & & & \\
2246: 44 & $\cp + \mSi \rightarrow \mC + \sip$ & $k_{44} = 2.1 \times 10^{-9}$ & & 31 \\
2247: & & & & \\
2248: \hline
2249: & & & & \\
2250: 45 & $\sip + \Hp \rightarrow \sipp + \mH$ &
2251: $k_{45} = 4.10 \times 10^{-10} \left( \frac{T}{10000} \right)^{0.24}$ & & 30 \\
2252: & & $\phantom{k_{45} = } \mbox{} \times \left[1.0 + 3.17 \expf{}{T}{2.39 \times 10^{6}} \right]
2253: \expf{-}{3.178}{T_{\rm e}}$ & & \\
2254: & & & & \\
2255: \hline
2256: & & & & \\
2257: 46 & $\sipp + \mH \rightarrow \sip + \Hp$ & $k_{46} = 1.23 \times 10^{-9}
2258: \left(\frac{T}{10000}\right)^{0.24}$ & & 30 \\
2259: & & $\phantom{k_{46} =} \mbox{} \times \left[1.0 + 3.17 \expf{}{T}{2.39 \times 10^{6}} \right] $ & & \\
2260: & & & & \\
2261: \hline
2262: & & & & \\
2263: 47 & $\sipp + \me \rightarrow \sip + \gamma$ & $k_{47, {\rm rr}} =
2264: 1.75 \times 10^{-12} \left( \frac{T}{10000} \right)^{-0.6346}$ & & 32 \\
2265: & & & & \\
2266: & & $k_{47, {\rm di}} = 2.2552 \times 10^{-11} T_{\rm e}^{-1.5} \expf{-}{2.76}{T_{\rm e}}$ & & 33 \\
2267: & & $\phantom{k_{47, {\rm di}} = } \mbox{} + 5.6058 \times 10^{-9} T_{\rm e}^{-1.5}
2268: \expf{-}{10.13}{T_{\rm e}}$ & & \\
2269: & & & & \\
2270: \enddata
2271: \tablerefs{1: \citet{WIS79}, 2: \citet{LAU91}, 3: \citet{RAM76}, 4: \citet{KAR79},
2272: 5: \citet{MOS70}, 6: \citet{SCH94}, 7: \citet{SAV04}, 8: \citet{STI99}, 9: \citet{MAC86},
2273: 10: \citet{MAR98}, 11: \citet{JAN87}, 12: \citet{FER92}, 13: \citet{POU78},
2274: 14: \citet{sav02}, 15: \citet{ger82}, 16: \citet{mlts94}, 17: \citet{s59},
2275: 18: \citet{hs98}, 19: \citet{ap73}, 20: \citet{z89}, 21: \citet{kldd93},
2276: 22: \citet{NAH97}, 23: \citet{NAH00}, 24: \citet{NAH99}, 25: \citet{VOR97},
2277: 26: \citet{STA99}, 27: \citet{STA98}, 28: \citet{z04}, 29: \citet{kd93},
2278: 30: \citet{KIN96}, 31: \citet{TEU00}, 32: \citet{n95,n96}, 33: \citet{mmcv98}}
2279: \tablecomments{$T$ and $T_{\rm e}$ are the gas temperature in units of K
2280: and eV respectively. References are to the primary source of data for each
2281: reaction.}
2282: \end{deluxetable}
2283:
2284: \begin{deluxetable}{llllll}
2285: \tablewidth{0pt}
2286: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
2287: \tablecaption{List of the photochemical gas-phase reactions in our
2288: chemical model. \label{tab:chem_gas_photo}}
2289: \tablehead{No.\ & Reaction & Cross-section (${\rm cm}^{2}$) & & Reference}
2290: \startdata
2291: 48 & $\mH + \gamma \rightarrow \Hp + \me$ &
2292: $\sigma_{48} = 6.3 \times 10^{-18} \left(\frac{E_{\rm th}}{E} \right)^{4}
2293: \exp(4 - 4\varepsilon^{-1} \arctan \: \varepsilon)$ & $E_{\rm th} = 13.6 \: {\rm eV}$ & 1 \\
2294: & & $\phantom{\sigma_{48} = } \mbox{} \times \left[1-\exp(-2\pi/\epsilon) \right]^{-1}$
2295: & $\varepsilon = \sqrt{\frac{E}{13.6} - 1}$ & \\
2296: & & & & \\
2297: 49 & $\mD + \gamma \rightarrow \Dp + \me$ & $\sigma_{49} = \sigma_{48}$ & $E_{\rm th} = 13.6 \: {\rm eV}$ & 1 \\
2298: & & & & \\
2299: 50 & $\He + \gamma \rightarrow \Hep + \me$ &
2300: $\sigma_{50} = 3.1451 \times 10^{-16} \left(\frac{E_{\rm th}}{E}\right)^{7/2} \times$
2301: & $E_{\rm th} = 24.6 \: {\rm eV}$ & 2 \\
2302: & & $\phantom{\sigma_{50}= } \left[1.0 - 4.7416
2303: \left(\frac{E_{\rm th}}{E}\right)^{1/2} + 14.82 \left(\frac{E_{\rm th}}{E}\right) \right.$ & & \\
2304: & & $\phantom{\sigma_{50} = } \mbox{} - 30.8678 \left(\frac{E_{\rm th}}{E}\right)^{3/2}
2305: + 37.3584 \left(\frac{E_{\rm th}}{E}\right)^{2}$ & & \\
2306: & & $\left. \phantom{\sigma_{50} = } \mbox{}
2307: -23.4585 \left(\frac{E_{\rm th}}{E}\right)^{5/2} + 5.9133 \left(\frac{E_{\rm th}}{E}\right)^{3} \right]$ & & \\
2308: & & & & \\
2309: 51 & $\Hm + \gamma \rightarrow \mH + \me$ &
2310: $\sigma_{51} = 2.11 \times 10^{-16} (E - E_{\rm th})^{3/2} E^{-3}$ & $E_{\rm th} = 0.755 \: {\rm eV}$ & 3 \\
2311: & & & & \\
2312: 52 & $\mHtp + \gamma \rightarrow \mH + \Hp$ &
2313: $\sigma_{52} = {\rm dex} \left[ -40.97 + 15.9795 \left(\frac{E}{E_{\rm th}}\right)
2314: - 3.53934 \left(\frac{E}{E_{\rm th}}\right)^{2} \right.$ & $E_{\rm th} = 2.65 \: {\rm eV}$ & 4 \\
2315: & & $\left. \phantom{\sigma_{52}=} \mbox{} + 0.2581155 \left(\frac{E}{E_{\rm th}}\right)^{3} \right]$
2316: & $2.65 < E < 11.27 \: {\rm eV}$ & \\
2317: & & & & \\
2318: & & $\phantom{\sigma_{52}} = {\rm dex} \left[ -30.26 + 7.3935 \left(\frac{E}{E_{\rm th}}\right)
2319: - 1.29214 \left(\frac{E}{E_{\rm th}}\right)^{2} \right. $ & $11.27 < E < 21.0 \: {\rm eV}$ & \\
2320: & & $\left. \phantom{\sigma_{52}=} \mbox{} + 6.5785 \times 10^{-2} \left(\frac{E}{E_{\rm th}}\right)^{3} \right]$ & & \\
2321: & & & & \\
2322: 53 & $\mHt + \gamma \rightarrow \mH + \mH$ & See \S\ref{h2_photodiss} & & 5 \\
2323: & & & & \\
2324: 54 & $\mHt + \gamma \rightarrow \mHtp + \me$ &
2325: $\sigma_{54} = 9.560 \times 10^{-17} \left(\frac{E}{E_{\rm th}}\right) - 9.4 \times 10^{-17}$ &
2326: $ E_{\rm th} = 15.4 \: {\rm eV}$ & 6 \\
2327: & & & $15.4 < E < 16.5 \: {\rm eV}$ & \\
2328: & & & & \\
2329: & & $\phantom{\sigma_{54}} = 2.16 \times 10^{-17} \left(\frac{E}{E_{\rm th}}\right)
2330: - 1.48 \times 10^{-17}$ & $16.5 < E < 17.7 \: {\rm eV}$ & \\
2331: & & & & \\
2332: & & $\phantom{\sigma_{54}} = 1.51 \times 10^{-17} \left(\frac{E}{E_{\rm th}}\right)^{-2.71}$ &
2333: $17.7 < E < 30.0 \: {\rm eV}$ & \\
2334: & & & & \\
2335: 55 & $\hd + \gamma \rightarrow \mH + \mD$ & See \S\ref{h2_photodiss} & & 7 \\
2336: & & & & \\
2337: 56 & $\mC + \gamma \rightarrow \cp + \me$ &
2338: $\sigma_{56} = 5.027 \times 10^{-16} F(x,y,y_{w},y_{a},P)$ & $E_{\rm th} = 11.26 \: {\rm eV}$ & 8 \\
2339: & & & $x = \frac{E}{2.144} - 1.133$ & \\
2340: & & & $y = \sqrt{x^{2} + 1.607^2}$ & \\
2341: & & & $y_{w} = 0.09157$ & \\
2342: & & & $y_{a} = 62.16$ & \\
2343: & & & $P = 5.101$ & \\
2344: & & & & \\
2345: 57 & $\mO + \gamma \rightarrow \op + \me$ &
2346: $\sigma_{57} = 1.745 \times 10^{-15} F(x,y,y_{w},y_{a},P)$ & $E_{\rm th} = 13.62 \: {\rm eV}$ & 8 \\
2347: & & & $x = \frac{E}{1.240} - 8.698$ & \\
2348: & & & $y = \sqrt{x^{2} + 0.1271^2}$ & \\
2349: & & & $y_{w} = 0.07589$ & \\
2350: & & & $y_{a} = 3.784$ & \\
2351: & & & $P = 17.64$ & \\
2352: & & & & \\
2353: & & & & \\
2354: 58 & $\mSi + \gamma \rightarrow \sip + \me$ &
2355: $\sigma_{58} = 2.506 \times 10^{-17} F(x,y,y_{w},y_{a},P)$ & $E_{\rm th} = 8.152 \: {\rm eV}$ & 8 \\
2356: & & & $x = \frac{E}{23.17} - 1.672 \times 10^{-5}$ & \\
2357: & & & $y = \sqrt{x^{2} + 0.4207^2}$ & \\
2358: & & & $y_{w} = 0.2837$ & \\
2359: & & & $y_{a} = 20.57$ & \\
2360: & & & $P = 3.546$ & \\
2361: & & & & \\
2362: 59 & $\sip + \gamma \rightarrow \sipp + \me$ &
2363: $\sigma_{59} = 4.140 \times 10^{-18} F(x,y,y_{w},y_{a},P)$ & $E_{\rm th} = 16.35 \: {\rm eV}$ & 8 \\
2364: & & & $x = \frac{E}{2.556} - 6.634$ & \\
2365: & & & $y = \sqrt{x^{2} + 0.1272^2}$ & \\
2366: & & & $y_{w} = 1.570$ & \\
2367: & & & $y_{a} = 13.37$ & \\
2368: & & & $P = 11.91$ & \\
2369: \enddata
2370: \tablerefs{1: \citet{os89}, 2: \citet{ysd98}, 3: \citet{dj72,SHA87}, 4: \citet{DUN68}, 5: \citet{DRA96},
2371: 6: \citet{or78,wam02}, 7: \citet{ar06}, 8: \citet{VER96}}
2372: \tablecomments{References are to the primary source of data for each reaction.
2373: $E$ is the photon energy in eV and $E_{\rm th}$ is the energy threshold in eV.
2374: The fitting function $F$ used in the tabulated cross-sections for reactions 56--59
2375: is from \citet{VER96} and is given
2376: by $F = [(x-1)^{2} + y_{w}^{2}] y^{0.5P-5.5} (1+\sqrt{y/y_{a}})^{-P}$.
2377: Photodissociation of $\mHt$ and $\hd$ occurs via absorption into a large number
2378: of discrete spectral lines and so no simple cross-section can be given for these
2379: processes; see \S\ref{h2_photodiss} for more details}
2380: \end{deluxetable}
2381:
2382: \begin{deluxetable}{lllc}
2383: \tablewidth{0pt}
2384: \tablecaption{List of the grain surface reactions included in our
2385: chemical model. \label{tab:chem_grain}}
2386: \tablehead{No.\ & Reaction & Rate coefficient $({\rm cm}^{3} \: {\rm s}^{-1})$ &
2387: Ref.\ }
2388: \startdata
2389: & & & \\
2390: 60 & $\mH + \mH \rightarrow \mHt$ &
2391: $k_{60} = 3.0 \times 10^{-18} T^{0.5} ({\cal D}/{\cal D_{\odot}})
2392: [1.0 + 4\times 10^{-2}(T + T_{\rm gr})^{0.5}$ & 1 \\
2393: & & $ \phantom{k_{60} =} \mbox{} + 2 \times 10^{-3} T + 8 \times 10^{-6} T^{2}]^{-1} \left[1.0 + 10^{4}
2394: \exp \left(-\frac{600}{T_{\rm gr}}\right) \right]^{-1}$ & \\
2395: & & & \\
2396: 61 & $\Hp + \me \rightarrow \mH$ &
2397: $k_{61} = 1.225 \times 10^{-13} ({\cal D}/{\cal D_{\odot}}) [1.0 + 8.074 \times 10^{-6} \psi^{1.378}$ & 2 \\
2398: & & $\phantom{k_{61} =} (1.0 + 5.087 \times 10^{2} T^{0.01586} \psi^{-0.4723 -
2399: 1.102 \times 10^{-5}\ln T})]^{-1}$ & \\
2400: & & & \\
2401: 62 & $\Dp + \me \rightarrow \mD$ & $k_{62} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} k_{61}$ & 3 \\
2402: & & & \\
2403: 63 & $\Hep + \me \rightarrow \He$ &
2404: $k_{63} = 5.572 \times 10^{-14} ({\cal D}/{\cal D_{\odot}}) [1.0 + 3.185 \times 10^{-7} \psi^{1.512}$ & 2 \\
2405: & & $\phantom{k_{63} =} (1.0 + 5.115 \times 10^{3} T^{3.903 \times 10^{-7}} \psi^{-0.4956 -
2406: 5.494 \times 10^{-7}\ln T})]^{-1}$ & \\
2407: & & & \\
2408: 64 & $\cp + \me \rightarrow \mC$ &
2409: $k_{64} = 4.558 \times 10^{-13} ({\cal D}/{\cal D_{\odot}}) [1.0 + 6.089 \times 10^{-3} \psi^{1.128} $ & 2 \\
2410: & & $\phantom{k_{64} =} (1.0 + 4.331 \times 10^{2} T^{0.04845} \psi^{-0.8120 -
2411: 1.333 \times 10^{-4}\ln T})]^{-1}$ & \\
2412: & & & \\
2413: 65 & $\op + \me \rightarrow \mO$ & $k_{65} = \frac{1}{4} k_{61}$ & 3 \\
2414: & & & \\
2415: 66 & $\sip + \me \rightarrow \mSi$ &
2416: $k_{66} = 2.166 \times 10^{-14} ({\cal D}/{\cal D_{\odot}}) [1.0 + 5.678 \times 10^{-8} \psi^{1.874} $ & 2 \\
2417: & & $\phantom{k_{65}=} (1.0 + 4.375 \times 10^{4} T^{1.635\times10^{-6}} \psi^{-0.8964 -
2418: 7.538 \times 10^{-5}\ln T})]^{-1}$ & \\
2419: & & & \\
2420: \enddata
2421: \tablecomments{${\cal D}$ is the dust-to-gas ratio and ${\cal D}_{\odot}$ is the dust-to-gas ratio
2422: in the local ISM. We generally assume that ${\cal D}/{\cal D}_{\odot} \equiv {\rm Z}/{\rm Z_{\odot}}$.
2423: $T$ and $T_{\rm gr}$ are the gas and grain temperatures, respectively.
2424: The parameter $\psi$ in the grain recombination rates is given by $\psi = G\sqrt{T} / n_{\rm e}$,
2425: where $G \simeq 0.01 J_{21}$ is a measure of the radiation energy density between
2426: $6 \: {\rm eV}$ and $13.6 \: {\rm eV}$ relative to the \citet{habing68} field.}
2427: \tablerefs{1: \citet{HOL79}; 2: \citet{WEI01a}; 3: This work, but based on \citet{WEI01a}}
2428: \end{deluxetable}
2429:
2430: \begin{deluxetable}{clcc}
2431: \tablecaption{List of cosmic ray ionization processes included in our chemical model
2432: \label{tab:cosmic}}
2433: \tablewidth{0pt}
2434: \tablehead{No.\ & Reaction & $\zeta_{\rm i}/\zeta_{\mH}$ & Ref.\ }
2435: \startdata
2436: 67 & $\mH + {\rm c.r.} \rightarrow \Hp + \me$ & 1.0 & \citet{TEU00} \\
2437: 68 & $\mD + {\rm c.r.} \rightarrow \Dp + \me$ & 1.0 & \citet{TEU00} \\
2438: 69 & $\He + {\rm c.r.} \rightarrow \Hep + \me$ & 1.09 & \citet{TEU00} \\
2439: 70 & $\mHt + {\rm c.r.} \rightarrow \mHtp + \me$ & 2.0 & \citet{TEU00} \\
2440: 71 & $\mC + {\rm c.r.} \rightarrow \cp + \me$ & 3.83 & \citet{TEU00} \\
2441: 72 & $\mO + {\rm c.r.} \rightarrow \op + \me$ & 5.67 & \citet{TEU00} \\
2442: 73 & $\mSi + {\rm c.r.} \rightarrow \sip + \me$ & 6.5 & \citet{lotz67,lang78} \\
2443: 74 & $\sip + {\rm c.r.} \rightarrow \sipp + \me$ & 2.5 & \citet{lotz67,lang78} \\
2444: \enddata
2445: \tablecomments{We list here the ratio of the various rates to the rate of
2446: process 67, the cosmic ray ionization of atomic hydrogen, $\zeta_{\mH}$,
2447: which we treat as an adjustable parameter in our models. Rates for cosmic
2448: ray ionization of $\mSi$ and $\sip$ were calculated following the prescription
2449: in \citet{lang78} and using data from \citet{lotz67} under the assumption that
2450: the effective number of outer shell electrons for $\mSi$ and $\sip$ in the
2451: high energy limit is the same as that for $\mC$ and $\cp$.}
2452: \end{deluxetable}
2453:
2454: \begin{deluxetable}{cclllll}
2455: \tablecaption{Atomic data for the fine structure transitions included in our thermal model \label{fs_data} }
2456: \tablewidth{0pt}
2457: \tablehead{\colhead{Coolant} & \colhead{Transition}
2458: & \colhead{$g_{j}$} & \colhead{$g_{i}$}
2459: & \colhead{$\lambda_{ji} (\mu{\rm m})$} & \colhead{$E_{ji} / k \: ({\rm K})$} &
2460: \colhead{$A_{ji} \: ({\rm s^{-1}})$}}
2461: \startdata
2462: $\mC$ & $1 \rightarrow 0$ & 3 & 1 & 609.2 & 24 & $7.9 \times 10^{-8}$ \\
2463: $\mC$ & $2 \rightarrow 0$ & 5 & 1 & 229.9 & 63 & $2.1 \times 10^{-14}$ \\
2464: $\mC$ & $2 \rightarrow 1$ & 5 & 3 & 369.0 & 39 & $2.7 \times 10^{-7}$ \\
2465: $\mO$ & $1 \rightarrow 0$ & 3 & 5 & 63.1& 230 & $8.9 \times 10^{-5}$ \\
2466: $\mO$ & $2 \rightarrow 0$ & 1 & 5 & 44.2 & 330 & $1.3 \times 10^{-10}$ \\
2467: $\mO$ & $2 \rightarrow 1$ & 1 & 3 & 145.6 & 98 & $1.8 \times 10^{-5}$ \\
2468: $\mSi$ & $1 \rightarrow 0$ & 3 & 1 & 129.6 & 110 & $8.4 \times 10^{-6}$ \\
2469: $\mSi$ & $2 \rightarrow 0$ & 5 & 1 & 44.8 & 320 & $2.4 \times 10^{-10}$ \\
2470: $\mSi$ & $2 \rightarrow 1$ & 5 & 3 & 68.4 & 210 & $4.2 \times 10^{-5}$ \\
2471: $\cp$ & $1 \rightarrow 0$ & 4 & 2 & 157.7 & 92 & $2.3 \times 10^{-6}$ \\
2472: $\sip$ & $1 \rightarrow 0$ & 4 & 2 & 34.8 & 410 & $2.2 \times 10^{-4}$ \\
2473: \enddata
2474: \end{deluxetable}
2475:
2476:
2477: \begin{deluxetable}{cclcc}
2478: \tablecaption{Collisional de-excitation rates for atomic fine-structure coolants \label{fs_coll_rates}}
2479: \tablewidth{0pt}
2480: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
2481: \tablehead{\colhead{Coolant} & \colhead{Collider} &
2482: \colhead{De-excitation rates (${\rm cm^{3}} \: {\rm s^{-1}}$)} &
2483: \colhead{Temperature range (K)} & \colhead{Refs.}}
2484: \startdata
2485: & & & & \\
2486: $\mC$ & o-$\mHt$ & $q_{10} = 8.7 \times 10^{-11} - 6.6 \times 10^{-11} \expf{-}{T}{218.3}$ & & \\
2487: & & $\phantom{q_{10}} \mbox{} + 6.6 \times 10^{-11} \expf{-}{2T}{218.3}$ & & 1 \\
2488: & & $q_{20} = 1.2 \times 10^{-10} - 6.1 \times 10^{-11} \expf{-}{T}{387.3}$ & & 1 \\
2489: & & $q_{21} = 2.9 \times 10^{-10} - 1.9 \times 10^{-10} \expf{-}{T}{348.9}$ & & 1 \\
2490: & & & & \\
2491: $\mC$ & p-$\mHt$ & $q_{10} = 7.9 \times 10^{-11} - 8.7 \times 10^{-11} \expf{-}{T}{126.4}$ & & \\
2492: & & $\phantom{q_{10}} \mbox{} + 1.3 \times 10^{-10} \expf{-}{2T}{126.4}$ & & 1 \\
2493: & & $q_{20} = 1.1 \times 10^{-10} - 8.6 \times 10^{-11} \expf{-}{T}{223.0} $ & & \\
2494: & & $\phantom{q_{20}} \mbox{} + 8.7 \times 10^{-11} \expf{-}{2T}{223.0} $ & & 1 \\
2495: & & $q_{21} = 2.7 \times 10^{-10} - 2.6 \times 10^{-10} \expf{-}{T}{250.7} $ & & \\
2496: & & $\phantom{q_{21}} \mbox{} + 1.8 \times 10^{-10} \expf{-}{2T}{250.7}$ & & 1 \\
2497: & & & & \\
2498: $\mC$ & $\mH$ & $q_{10} = 1.6 \times 10^{-10} T_{2}^{0.14}$ & & 2 \\
2499: & & $q_{20} = 9.2 \times 10^{-11} T_{2}^{0.26}$ & & 2 \\
2500: & & $q_{21} = 2.9 \times 10^{-10} T_{2}^{0.26}$ & & 2 \\
2501: & & & & \\
2502: $\mC$ & $\Hp$ & $q_{10} = (9.6 \times 10^{-11} - 1.8 \times 10^{-14} T + 1.9 \times 10^{-18} T^{2})
2503: T^{0.45}$ & $T \le 5000 $ & 3 \\
2504: & & $\phantom{q_{10}} = 8.9 \times 10^{-10} T^{0.117}$ & $T > 5000 $ & 3 \\
2505: & & & & \\
2506: & & $q_{20} = (3.1 \times 10^{-12} - 6.0 \times 10^{-16} T + 3.9 \times 10^{-20} T^{2}) T$ &
2507: $T \le 5000 $ & 3 \\
2508: & & $\phantom{q_{20}} = 2.3 \times 10^{-9} T^{0.0965}$ & $T > 5000 $ & 3 \\
2509: & & & & \\
2510: & & $q_{21} = (1.0 \times 10^{-10} - 2.2 \times 10^{-14} T + 1.7 \times 10^{-18} T^{2}) T^{0.70}$
2511: & $T \le 5000 $ & 3 \\
2512: & & $\phantom{q_{21}} = 9.2 \times 10^{-9} T^{0.0535}$ & $T > 5000 $ & 3 \\
2513: & & & & \\
2514: $\mC$ & $\me$ & $q_{10} = 2.88 \times 10^{-6} T^{-0.5} \exp [ -9.25141
2515: - 7.73782 \times 10^{-1} \ln{T}$ & & \\
2516: & & $\phantom{q_{10}} \mbox{} + 3.61184 \times 10^{-1} (\ln{T})^{2}
2517: - 1.50892 \times 10^{-2} (\ln{T})^{3}$ & & \\
2518: & & $\phantom{q_{10}} \mbox{} - 6.56325 \times 10^{-4} (\ln{T})^{4}]$ & $T \le 1000 $ & 4 \\
2519: & & & & \\
2520: & & $\phantom{q_{10}} = 2.88 \times 10^{-6} T^{-0.5} \exp [ -4.44600 \times 10^{2}
2521: - 2.27913 \times 10^{2} \ln{T}$ & & \\
2522: & & $\phantom{q_{10}} \mbox{} + 4.2595 \times 10^{1} (\ln{T})^{2}
2523: - 3.47620 \times 10^{0} (\ln{T})^{3}$ & & \\
2524: & & $\phantom{q_{10}} \mbox{} + 1.0508 \times 10^{-1} (\ln{T})^{4}]$ & $T > 1000 $ & 4 \\
2525: & & & & \\
2526: & & $q_{20} = 1.73 \times 10^{-6} T^{-0.5} \exp [ -7.69735 - 1.30743 \ln{T}$ & & \\
2527: & & $\phantom{q_{20}} \mbox{} + 0.697638 (\ln{T})^{2} - 0.111338 (\ln{T})^{3}$ & & \\
2528: & & $\phantom{q_{20}} \mbox{} + 0.705277 \times 10^{-2} (\ln{T})^4 ]$ & $T \le 1000 $ & 4 \\
2529: & & & & \\
2530: & & $\phantom{q_{20}} = 1.73 \times 10^{-6} T^{-0.5} \exp [3.50609 \times 10^{2}
2531: - 1.87474 \times 10^{2} \ln{T}$ & & \\
2532: & & $\phantom{q_{20}} \mbox{} + 3.61803 \times 10^{1} (\ln{T})^{2}
2533: - 3.03283 \times 10^{0} (\ln{T})^{3}$ & & \\
2534: & & $\phantom{q_{20}} \mbox{} + 9.38138 \times 10^{-2} (\ln{T})^{4} ]$ & $T > 1000 $ & 4 \\
2535: & & & & \\
2536: & & $q_{21} = 1.73 \times 10^{-6} T^{-0.5} \exp [ -7.4387 - 0.57443 \ln{T}$ & & \\
2537: & & $\phantom{q_{21}} \mbox{} + 0.358264 (\ln{T})^{2} - 4.18166 \times 10^{-2} (\ln{T})^{3}$ & & \\
2538: & & $\phantom{q_{21}} \mbox{} + 2.35272 \times 10^{-3} (\ln{T})^{4} ]$ & $T \le 1000 $ & 4 \\
2539: & & & & \\
2540: & & $\phantom{q_{21}} = 1.73 \times 10^{-6} T^{-0.5} \exp [ 3.86186 \times 10^{2}
2541: - 2.02192 \times 10^{2} \ln{T}$ & & \\
2542: & & $\phantom{q_{21}} \mbox{} + 3.85049 \times 10^{1} (\ln{T})^{2}
2543: - 3.19268 \times 10^{0} (\ln{T})^{3}$ & & \\
2544: & & $\phantom{q_{21}} \mbox{} + 9.78573 \times 10^{-2} (\ln{T})^{4}]$ & $T > 1000 $ & 4 \\
2545: & & & & \\
2546: \hline
2547: & & & & \\
2548: $\mO$ & o-$\mHt$ & $q_{10} = 2.7 \times 10^{-11} T^{0.362} $ & & 5 \\
2549: & & $q_{20} = 5.49 \times 10^{-11} T^{0.317} $ & & 5 \\
2550: & & $q_{21} = 2.74 \times 10^{-14} T^{1.060} $ & & 5 \\
2551: & & & & \\
2552: $\mO$ & p-$\mHt$ & $q_{10} = 3.46 \times 10^{-11} T^{0.316} $ & & 5 \\
2553: & & $q_{20} = 7.07 \times 10^{-11} T^{0.268} $ & & 5 \\
2554: & & $q_{21} = 3.33 \times 10^{-15} T^{1.360} $ & & 5 \\
2555: & & & & \\
2556: $\mO$ & $\mH$ & $q_{10} = 9.2 \times 10^{-11} T_{2}^{0.67} $ & & 5 \\
2557: & & $q_{20} = 4.3 \times 10^{-11} T_{2}^{0.80} $ & & 5 \\
2558: & & $q_{21} = 1.1 \times 10^{-10} T_{2}^{0.44} $ & & 5 \\
2559: & & & & \\
2560: $\mO$ & $\Hp$ & $q_{10} = 6.38 \times 10^{-11} T^{0.40}$ & $T \le 194 $ & 6 \\
2561: & & $\phantom{q_{10}} = 7.75 \times 10^{-12} T^{0.80}$ & $194 < T \le 3686 $ & \\
2562: & & $\phantom{q_{10}} = 2.65 \times 10^{-10} T^{0.37}$ & $T > 3686 $ & \\
2563: & & & & \\
2564: & & $q_{20} = 6.10 \times 10^{-13} T^{1.10}$ & $T \le 511 $ & 6 \\
2565: & & $\phantom{q_{20}} = 2.12 \times 10^{-12} T^{0.90}$ & $511 < T \le 7510 $ & \\
2566: & & $\phantom{q_{20}} = 4.49 \times 10^{-10} T^{0.30}$ & $T > 7510 $ & \\
2567: & & & & \\
2568: & & $q_{21} = 2.03 \times 10^{-11} T^{0.56}$ & $T \le 2090 $ & 6 \\
2569: & & $\phantom{q_{21}} = 3.43 \times 10^{-10} T^{0.19}$ & $T > 2090 $ & \\
2570: & & & & \\
2571: $\mO$ & $\me$ & $q_{10} = 5.12 \times 10^{-10} T^{-0.075} $ & & 7 \\
2572: & & $q_{20} = 4.86 \times 10^{-10} T^{-0.026} $ & & 7 \\
2573: & & $q_{21} = 1.08 \times 10^{-14} T^{0.926} $ & & 7 \\
2574: & & & & \\
2575: \hline
2576: & & & & \\
2577: $\mSi$ & $\mH$ & $q_{10} = 3.5 \times 10^{-10} T_{2}^{-0.03}$ & & 2 \\
2578: & & $q_{20} = 1.7 \times 10^{-11} T_{2}^{0.17} $ & & 2 \\
2579: & & $q_{21} = 5.0 \times 10^{-10} T_{2}^{0.17} $ & & 2 \\
2580: & & & & \\
2581: $\mSi$ & $\Hp$ & $q_{10} = 7.2 \times 10^{-9} $ & & 2 \\
2582: & & $q_{20} = 7.2 \times 10^{-9} $ & & 2 \\
2583: & & $q_{21} = 2.2 \times 10^{-8} $ & & 2 \\
2584: & & & & \\
2585: \hline
2586: & & & & \\
2587: $\cp$ & o-$\mHt$ & $q_{10} = 4.7 \times 10^{-10} + 4.6 \times 10^{-13} T$ & $T \le 250 $ & 8, 9 \\
2588: & & $\phantom{q_{10}} = 5.85 \times 10^{-10} T^{0.07}$ & $T > 250 $ & \\
2589: & & & & \\
2590: $\cp$ & p-$\mHt$ & $q_{10} = 2.5 \times 10^{-10} T^{0.12}$ & $T \le 250 $ & 8, 9 \\
2591: & & $\phantom{q_{10}} = 4.85 \times 10^{-10} T^{0.07}$ & $T > 250 $ & \\
2592: & & & & \\
2593: $\cp$ & $\mH$ & $q_{10} = 8.0 \times 10^{-10} T_{2}^{0.07}$ & $T \le 2000 $ & 2, 10 \\
2594: & & $\phantom{q_{10}} = 3.1 \times 10^{-10} T_{2}^{0.385}$ & $T > 2000 $ & \\
2595: & & & & \\
2596: $\cp$ & $\me$ & $q_{10} = 3.86 \times 10^{-7} T_{2}^{-0.5}$ & $T \le 2000 $ & 11 \\
2597: & & $\phantom{q_{10}} = 2.43 \times 10^{-7} T_{2}^{-0.345}$ & $T > 2000 $ & \\
2598: & & & & \\
2599: \hline
2600: & & & & \\
2601: $\sip$ & $\mH$ & $q_{10} = 4.95 \times 10^{-10} T_{2}^{0.24}$ & & 12 \\
2602: & & & & \\
2603: $\sip$ & $\me$ & $q_{10} = 1.2 \times 10^{-6} T_{2}^{-0.5}$ & & 13 \\
2604: & & & & \\
2605: \enddata
2606: \tablecomments{o-$\mHt$ and p-$\mHt$ denote ortho-$\mHt$ and para-$\mHt$
2607: respectively. $T$ is the gas temperature (in Kelvin) and $T_{2} = 10^{-2} T$.}
2608: \tablerefs{1: \citet{SCH91}; 2: \citet{HOL89}; 3: \citet{RLB90}; 4: \citet{JOH87};
2609: 5: Flower, private communication; 6: \citet{PEQ90,PEQ96}; 7: \citet{BEL98};
2610: 8: \citet{FLO77}; 9: assumed to have the same scaling with $T$ as the low temperature
2611: $\mH$ rate for temperatures above the range of the \citet{FLO77} fit;
2612: 10: \citet{KEE86}; 11: \citet{WIL02}; 12: \citet{ROU90};
2613: 13: \citet{DUF91}, extrapolated to $T < 4000 \: {\rm K}$ assuming constant
2614: collision strength}
2615: \end{deluxetable}
2616:
2617: \begin{deluxetable}{llc}
2618: \tablecaption{Other processes included in our thermal model. \label{cool_other}}
2619: \tablewidth{0pt}
2620: \tabletypesize{\small}
2621: \tablehead{
2622: \colhead{Process} & \colhead{Rate (${\rm erg \: cm^{-3}} \: {\rm s^{-1}}$)} & \colhead{Ref.} }
2623: \startdata
2624: {\bf Cooling:} & & \\
2625: & & \\
2626: H excitation & $\Lambda = 7.5 \times 10^{-19} \left(1.0 + \sqrt{T/10^{5}}\right)^{-1}
2627: \expf{-}{118348}{T} n_{\rm e} n_{\mH}$ & 1 \\
2628: & & \\
2629: He excitation ($1^1$S state) & $\Lambda = 1.1 \times 10^{-19} T^{0.082} \expf{-}{230000}{T} n_{\rm e} n_{\He}$ & 2 \\
2630: & & \\
2631: He excitation ($2^3$S state) & $\Lambda = 9.1 \times 10^{-27} T^{-0.1687} \left(1.0 + \sqrt{T/10^{5}}\right)^{-1}
2632: \expf{-}{13179}{T} n_{\rm e}^{2} n_{\Hep}$ & 1 \\
2633: & & \\
2634: $\Hep$ excitation &$\Lambda = 5.54 \times 10^{-17} T^{-0.397} \left(1.0 + \sqrt{T/10^{5}}\right)^{-1}
2635: \expf{-}{473638}{T} n_{\rm e} n_{\Hep}$ & 1 \\
2636: & & \\
2637: $\mH$ collisional ionization & $\Lambda = 2.179 \times 10^{-11} k_{11} n_{\rm e} n_{\mH}$ & 3 \\
2638: & & \\
2639: $\He$ collisional ionization & $\Lambda = 3.94 \times 10^{-11} k_{24} n_{\rm e} n_{\He}$ & 3 \\
2640: & & \\
2641: Compton cooling & $\Lambda = 1.017 \times 10^{-37} T_{\rm CMB}^{4} \left(T - T_{\rm CMB}\right) n_{\rm e}$ & 1 \\
2642: & & \\
2643: Bremsstrahlung & $\Lambda = 1.426 \times 10^{-27} Z_{i}^{2} T^{1/2} g_{\rm ff}(Z_{i}, T) n_{\rm e} n_{i}$ & 4 \\
2644: & & \\
2645: & $g_{\rm ff} = 0.79464 + 0.1243 \log \left(T/Z_{i}^{2}\right) \hspace{.5in} (T/Z_{i}^{2}) < 320000 \: {\rm K} $ & \\
2646: & $\phantom{g_{\rm ff}} = 2.13164 - 0.1240 \log \left(T/Z_{i}^{2}\right) \hspace{.5in} (T/Z_{i}^{2}) > 320000 \: {\rm K} $ & \\
2647: & & \\
2648: $\Hp$ recombination (radiative) & $\Lambda = 1.38 \times 10^{-16} T k_{13} n_{e} n_{\Hp}$ & 5 \\
2649: & & \\
2650: $\Hep$ recombination (radiative) & $\Lambda = 1.38 \times 10^{-16} T k_{25, \rm rr} n_{e} n_{\Hep}$ & 6 \\
2651: & & \\
2652: $\Hep$ recombination (dielectronic) & $\Lambda = 6.54 \times 10^{-11} k_{25, \rm di} n_{e} n_{\Hep}$ & 7 \\
2653: & & \\
2654: Grain surface recombination & $\Lambda = 2.33 \times 10^{-30} T^{0.94} \tilde{\psi}^{0.74 / T^{0.068}}
2655: \left(\frac{{\rm Z}}{{\rm Z_{\odot}}}\right) n_{\rm e} n$ & 8 \\
2656: & & \\
2657: $\mHt$ rovibrational lines & See \S\ref{cool:other} & 9 \\
2658: & & \\
2659: $\hd$ rovibrational lines & See \S\ref{cool:other} & 10 \\
2660: & & \\
2661: $\mHt$ collisional dissociation & $\Lambda = 7.2 \times 10^{-12} \left(k_{9} n_{\mH} + k_{10} n_{\mHt} \right) n_{\mHt}$ & 11 \\
2662: & & \\
2663: Gas-grain energy transfer & $\Lambda = 3.8 \times 10^{-33} T^{1/2} (T - T_{\rm gr})
2664: \left[1.0 - 0.8 \expf{-}{75}{T}\right] \left(\frac{{\rm Z}}{{\rm Z_{\odot}}}\right) n^{2}$ & 12 \\
2665: & & \\
2666: & & \\
2667: {\bf Heating:} & & \\
2668: & & \\
2669: Photoelectric effect & $\Gamma = 1.3 \times 10^{-24} \epsilon \, G \left(\frac{{\rm Z}}{{\rm Z_{\odot}}}\right) n$& 13 \\
2670: & & \\
2671: & $\epsilon = \frac{4.9 \times 10^{-2}}{1.0 + 4.0 \times 10^{-3} \tilde{\psi}^{0.73}} + \frac{3.7 \times 10^{-2}
2672: (T/10000)^{0.7}}{1.0 + 2.0 \times 10^{-4} \tilde{\psi}}$ & \\
2673: & & \\
2674: $\mHt$ photodissociation & $\Gamma = 6.4 \times 10^{-13} R_{\rm diss} n_{\mHt}$ & 14 \\
2675: & & \\
2676: UV pumping of $\mHt$ & $\Gamma = 2.7 \times 10^{-11} R_{\rm diss} n_{\mHt} \left(\frac{n}{n + n_{\rm cr}}\right)$ & 15 \\
2677: & & \\
2678: H photoionization & Dependent on incident spectrum; see \S\ref{photochem} & 16 \\
2679: & & \\
2680: He photoionization & Dependent on incident spectrum; see \S\ref{photochem} & 17 \\
2681: & & \\
2682: Gas-phase $\mHt$ formation & $\Gamma = \left[2.93 \times 10^{-12} k_{2} n_{\Hm} +
2683: 5.65 \times 10^{-12} k_{4} n_{\mHtp}\right] n_{\mH} \left(\frac{n}{n + n_{\rm cr}}\right)$ & 18 \\
2684: & & \\
2685: $\mHt$ formation on dust grains & $\Gamma = 7.16 \times 10^{-12} k_{60} \, n \, n_{\mH}
2686: \left(\frac{n}{n + n_{\rm cr}}\right)$ & 19 \\
2687: & & \\
2688: Cosmic-ray ionization & $\Gamma = 3.2 \times 10^{-11} \zeta_{\rm tot} \, n$ & 20 \\
2689: \enddata
2690: \tablerefs{1: \citet{CEN92}, 2: \citet{BBFT00}, 3: \citet{JAN87}, 4: \citet{SHA87}
2691: 5: \citet{FER92}, 6: \citet{hs98}, 7: \citet{ap73}, 8: \citet{WOL03}, 9: \citet{BOU99},
2692: 10: \citet{lna05}, 11: \citet{MAC86, MAR98}, 12: \citet{HOL89}, 13: \citet{BAK94,WOL95},
2693: 14: \citet{BLA77}, 15: \citet{BUR90}, 16: \citet{os89}, 17: \citet{ysd98}, 18: \citet{LAU91,KAR79},
2694: 19: \citet{HOL79}, 20: \citet{gl78}}
2695: \tablecomments{$Z_{i}$ and $n_{i}$ are the ion charge and
2696: number density of ion $i$. The parameter $\tilde{\psi}$ is given by
2697: $\tilde{\psi} = G \sqrt{T} / 0.5 n_{\rm e}$, where $G \simeq 0.01 J_{21}$ is a
2698: measure of the radiation energy density between
2699: $6 \: {\rm eV}$ and $13.6 \: {\rm eV}$ relative to the \citet{habing68} field.
2700: $R_{\rm diss}$ is the photodissociation rate, calculated as discussed in \S\ref{h2_photodiss}.
2701: $\zeta_{\rm tot}$ is the total cosmic-ray ionization rate (i.e.\ the sum of the rates for the
2702: various different species, weighted by their fractional abundances:
2703: $\zeta_{\rm tot} = \sum_{i} x_{i} \zeta_{i}$). Finally, note that our treatment of recombination
2704: cooling here is approximate, but that it should be accurate
2705: enough for most purposes.}
2706: \end{deluxetable}
2707:
2708: \end{document}
2709: