1: \documentclass[10pt,preprint]{emulateapj}

2: 

3: \newcommand{\calL}{{\cal L}}

4: \newcommand{\cbo}{CB$190$}

5: \newcommand{\spitzer}{\textit{Spitzer}}

6: \newcommand \msun{\hbox{$\hbox{M}_{\odot}$}}

7: 

8: \begin{document}

9: 

10: \title{\textit{Spitzer} observations of a 24$\micron$ shadow: Bok

11: Globule CB190 \altaffilmark{1}}

12: 

13: \author{Amelia M. Stutz\altaffilmark{2}, John

14:   H. Bieging\altaffilmark{2}, George H. Rieke\altaffilmark{2}, Yancy

15:   L. Shirley\altaffilmark{2}, Zoltan Balog\altaffilmark{2}, Karl

16:   D. Gordon\altaffilmark{2}, Elizabeth M. Green\altaffilmark{2},

17:   Jocelyn Keene\altaffilmark{3}, Brandon C. Kelly\altaffilmark{2},

18:   Mark Rubin\altaffilmark{3}, Michael W. Werner\altaffilmark{3}}

19: 

20: \altaffiltext{1}{This work is based in part on observations made with

21: the \textit{Spitzer Space Telescope}, which is operated by the Jet

22: Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under NASA

23: contract 1407.}  

24: 

25: \altaffiltext{2}{Department of Astronomy and Steward Observatory,

26: University of Arizona, 933 North Cherry Avenue, Tucson, Arizona 85721;

27: astutz@as.arizona.edu.}

28: 

29: \altaffiltext{3}{Jet Propulsion Lab, California Institute of

30: Technology, 4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, CA 91109.}

31: 

32: 

33: \begin{abstract}

34: 

35: We present {\it Spitzer} observations of the dark globule CB190

36: (L771).  We observe a roughly circular 24$\micron$ shadow with a

37: $70\arcsec$ radius.  The extinction profile of this shadow matches the

38: profile derived from 2MASS photometry at the outer edges of the

39: globule and reaches a maximum of $\sim\!32$ visual magnitudes at the

40: center.  The corresponding mass of CB190 is $\sim\!10$~$\msun$.  Our

41: $^{12}$CO and $^{13}$CO J = 2-1 data over a

42: 10$\arcmin\times$10$\arcmin$ region centered on the shadow show a

43: temperature $\sim\!10$~K.  The thermal continuum indicates a similar

44: temperature for the dust.  The molecular data also show evidence of

45: freezeout onto dust grains.  We estimate a distance to CB190 of 400~pc

46: using the spectroscopic parallax of a star associated with the

47: globule.  Bonnor-Ebert fits to the density profile, in conjunction

48: with this distance, yield $\xi_{max} = 7.2$, indicating that \cbo\ may

49: be unstable.  The high temperature (56~K) of the best fit Bonnor-Ebert

50: model is in contradiction with the CO and thermal continuum data,

51: leading to the conclusion that the thermal pressure is not enough to

52: prevent free-fall collapse.  We also find that the turbulence in the

53: cloud is inadequate to support it.  However, the cloud may be

54: supported by the magnetic field, if this field is at the average level

55: for dark globules.  Since the magnetic field will eventually leak out

56: through ambipolar diffusion, it is likely that \cbo\ is collapsing or

57: in a late pre-collapse stage.

58: 

59: \end{abstract}

60: 

61: \keywords{ISM: globules --  ISM: individual (CB190) --  infrared: ISM

62: --  (ISM:) dust, extinction}

63: 

64: \section{Introduction}

65: 

66: Cold cloud cores, where star formation begins, represent the stage in

67: early stellar evolution after the formation of molecular clouds and

68: before the formation of Class 0 objects.  Their emission is

69: inaccessible at shorter wavelengths, such as the near infrared and

70: visual bands, due to low temperatures, very high gas densities, and

71: associated large amounts of dust.  Because cold cloud cores can best

72: be observed at sub-millimeter and far-infrared wavelengths, these

73: spectral regions are essential to developing an understanding of the

74: first steps toward star-formation \citep[see,

75: e.g.,][]{bacmann00,kirk07}.  The wavelength range accessible to the

76: {\it Spitzer} Space Telescope, 3.6~$\micron$ to 160~$\micron$, is

77: ideally suited to observe cold, dense regions.  

78: 

79: 

80: \cbo\ (L771) is an example of one such dark globule and is classified

81: in the Lynds catalog as having an opacity of 6 \citep{lynds62},

82: i.e., very high.  \citet{clemens88} study this object as part of an

83: optically selected survey of small molecular clouds.  They find that

84: it appears optically isolated, is somewhat asymmetric ($a/b\sim2.5$)

85: and has some bright rims of reflection and H$\alpha$.  \cbo\ is

86: $\sim\!5\arcmin$ across, and has an estimated distance of 400~pc

87: \citep{neckel80}.

88: 

89: We present Spitzer maps of \cbo.  In particular, we highlight the

90: observation of this globule in absorption at 24~$\micron$.  We combine

91: these data with SCUBA observations at 850~$\micron$.  We have obtained

92: complementary Heinrich Hertz Telescope (HHT) $^{12}$CO and $^{13}$CO

93: J=2-1 on the fly (OTF) maps of this globule and have used the HHT and

94: Green Bank Telescope (GBT) to measure high resolution line profiles

95: for $^{12}$CO, $^{13}$CO, NH$_3$, CCS, C$_3$S, and HC$_5$N.  We report

96: C$^{18}$O and DCO$^+$ measurements with the Caltech Submillimeter

97: Observatory (CSO).  We discuss the issue of stability and possible

98: support mechanisms in some detail; however, we cannot say conclusively

99: if \cbo\ is in equilibrium.  In \S~2 we describe the observations and

100: data processing.  In \S~3 we present our main analysis of \cbo: we

101: derive an optical depth and an extinction profile for the 24~$\micron$

102: shadow using a technique presented for the first time in this

103: work\footnote{Previous related work has been conducted using the ISO

104: 7$\micron$ band, \citep[e.g.,][]{bacmann00}}.  We also discuss two

105: sources associated with \cbo\ and derive a distance estimate.  In \S~4

106: we compare various mass estimates of this object.  In \S~5 we describe

107: our Bonnor-Ebert fitting method and discuss possible support

108: mechanisms for \cbo.  Finally, in \S~6 we summarize our main

109: conclusions.  All positions are given in the J2000 system.

110: 

111: 

112: \section{Observations and processing}

113: 

114: \subsection{Spitzer data}

115: 

116: Object \cbo\ (L$771$), centered at about RA = $19^h 20^m 48^s$, Dec =

117: $+23^o 29\arcmin 45\arcsec$, was observed with the MIPS instrument

118: \citep{rieke04} at $24$~$\micron$, $70$~$\micron$ and $160$~$\micron$,

119: \spitzer\ program ID $53$ (P.I. G. Rieke).  The observations were

120: carried out in scan map mode.  Figure~\ref{fig:mips} shows these data,

121: along with the Digital Sky Survey (DSS) red plate image of the

122: globule.

123: 

124: The 24~$\micron$ data were reduced using version 3.06 of the MIPS Data

125: Analysis Tool (DAT; Gordon et al.\ 2005).  In addition to the standard

126: processing, several other additional steps have been applied: 1)

127: correcting for variable offsets among the four readouts; 2) applying

128: a scan-mirror position-dependent flat field; 3) applying a scan-mirror

129: position-independent flat field to remove long term gain changes due

130: to previous saturating sources; and 4) background subtraction.  For

131: the last two steps, masks of any bright sources and also of the region

132: of interest were used to ensure that the two corrections were

133: unbiased.  The background subtraction was performed by fitting a low

134: order polynomial to each scan leg of the masked data and subtracting

135: the resulting fit.  This procedure removes the contribution of

136: zodiacal and other background light as well as small transients seen

137: after a boost frame.

138: 

139: The 70~$\micron$ and 160~$\micron$ data were also reduced using the

140: DAT (Gordon et al. 2005).  After completing the standard reduction

141: processing, an additional correction was performed to remove the long

142: term drift in the Ge:Ga detectors.  The correction was determined by

143: fitting a low order polynomial to the masked version of the entire

144: dataset for each pixel.  By masking bright sources as well as the

145: region of interest we ensure that the masked-version fits are

146: unbiased.  The resulting fits for each pixel were subtracted to remove

147: the long term drift as well as any background light.

148: 

149: \cbo\ was observed with the IRAC instrument \citep{fazio04} at $3.6$,

150: $4.5$, $5.8$ and $8.0$~$\micron$, program ID $94$ \

151: (P.I. C. Lawrence), see fig.~\ref{fig:irac}.  Standard packages were

152: used to reduce the data, and the mosaicked frames were generated with

153: the MOPEX software package.  The data were taken in high dynamic range

154: mode; the $30$ second exposure time was divided into a $1.0$s

155: ``short'' frame and a $26.8$~s ``long'' frame at each position.  Each

156: observation was repeated $5$ times, yielding an effective long-frame

157: exposure time of $134$~s.  SExtractor \citep{bertin96} was used for

158: both source extraction and photometry.  The photometry was

159: cross-checked with PhotVis version $1.1$, an IDL GUI-based

160: implementation of DAOPHOT \citep{gutermuth04}.  We found good

161: agreement between the two sets of photometry.

162: 

163: 

164: \subsection{$^{12}$CO and $^{13}$CO data}

165: 

166: The \cbo\ region was mapped in the J=2-1 transitions of $^{12}$CO and

167: $^{13}$CO with the 10-m diameter HHT on Mt. Graham, Arizona on 2005

168: June 9.  The receiver was a dual polarization SIS mixer system

169: operating in double-sideband mode with a 4 - 6 GHz IF band.  The

170: $^{12}$CO J=2-1 line at 230.538 GHz was placed in the upper sideband

171: and the $^{13}$CO J=2-1 line at 220.399 GHz in the lower sideband,

172: with a small offset in frequency to ensure that the two lines were

173: adequately separated in the IF band.  The spectrometers, one for each

174: of the two polarizations, were filter banks with 1024 channels of 1

175: MHz width and separation.  At the observing frequencies, the spectral

176: resolution was 1.3~km~s$^{-1}$ and the angular resolution of the

177: telescope was 32$\arcsec$ (FWHM).

178: 

179: A $10\arcmin \times 10\arcmin$ field centered at RA = $19^h 20^m

180: 49.5^s$, Dec = $+23^o 29\arcmin 57\arcsec$ was mapped with on-the-fly

181: (OTF) scanning in RA at $10\arcsec$~sec$^{-1}$, with row spacing of

182: $10\arcsec$ in declination, over a total of 60 rows.  This field was

183: observed twice, each time requiring about 100 minutes of elapsed time.

184: System temperatures were calibrated by the standard ambient

185: temperature load method \citep{kutner81} after every other row of the

186: map grid.  Atmospheric conditions were clear and stable, and the

187: system temperatures were nearly constant at $T_{sys} = 450$~K (SSB).

188: 

189: Data for each polarization and CO isotopomer were processed with the

190: {\it CLASS} reduction package (from the University of Grenoble

191: Astrophysics Group), by removing a linear baseline and convolving the

192: data to a square grid with $16\arcsec$ grid spacing (equal to one-half

193: the telescope beamwidth).  The intensity scales for the two

194: polarizations were determined from observations of DR21(OH) made just

195: before the OTF maps.  The gridded spectral data cubes were processed

196: with the {\it Miriad} software package \citep{sault95} for further

197: analysis.  The two polarizations were averaged, yielding images with

198: rms noise per pixel and per velocity channel of 0.15~K-T$_A ^*$ for

199: both the $^{12}$CO and $^{13}$CO transitions.

200: 

201: The linewidths were narrow, so that 70\% of the flux in the $^{12}$CO

202: J=2-1 line was in a single 1 MHz spectrometer channel, while

203: essentially all the flux of the $^{13}$CO line was in a single

204: channel.  We can therefore set an upper limit of

205: $\sim\!1.3$~km~s$^{-1}$ on the linewidth for the emission lines, but

206: have little or no kinematic information from the maps, other than the

207: LSR velocity, which is 11.0 km~s$^{-1}$, in agreement with

208: \citet{clemens88}.  In figure~\ref{fig:co} we show two maps of the

209: integrated $^{12}$CO and $^{13}$CO J=2-1 lines, summed over the 2

210: spectrometer channels with detectable emission.  Furthermore, in

211: figure~\ref{fig:overbw}, we show the $^{13}$CO J=2-1 contours

212: overlayed on the 24~$\micron$ image; the spatial coincidence between

213: the two is evident.  

214: 

215: To better constrain the CO line properties, we observed the core of

216: the molecular cloud with high velocity resolution on 2006 June 21 with

217: the HHT.  The position observed was at RA = $19^h 20^m 46.4^s $, Dec =

218: $+23^o 29\arcmin 45\farcs6 $, which is the peak of the $^{12}$CO

219: intensity map (fig.~\ref{fig:co}).  Both the $^{12}$CO and $^{13}$CO

220: J=2-1 transitions were observed for 15 minutes each.  The high

221: resolution $^{12}$CO and $^{13}$CO spectra are shown in

222: fig.~\ref{fig:hr12}.  The $^{12}$CO line is slightly asymmetric, with

223: a peak beam-averaged brightness temperature of 7.65~K, and a velocity

224: width (FWHM) of 1.22~km~s$^{-1}$.  The $^{13}$CO line is narrower,

225: with a FWHM of 0.97~km~s$^{-1}$, and has a peak intensity of 2.96~K.

226: The $^{12}$CO/$^{13}$CO intensity ratio at the line peak is therefore

227: $\sim\!2.6$; if the isotopic ratio [$^{12}$CO/$^{13}$CO] = 50, the

228: optical depth of the $^{13}$CO line at the peak is $\sim\!0.5$, and

229: the line is optically thin.  While values for [$^{12}$CO/$^{13}$CO] in

230: the range of 50 to 70 are reasonable, see e.g., \citet{milam05},

231: changing the isotopic ratio will not significantly affect our

232: calculated optical depth.  We can then compute an integrated CO column

233: density assuming the CO rotational levels are in LTE.  Following

234: \citet{rohlfs04}, the peak $^{12}$CO line brightness temperature

235: implies a CO excitation temperature of 12.6~K.  Assuming this applies

236: to both isotopomers, the integrated $^{13}$CO J=2-1 line intensity

237: gives an integrated column density of N($^{13}$CO)$ = 2 \times

238: 10^{15}$~cm$^{-2}$ at the cloud peak, and N($^{12}$CO) $ = 9 \times

239: 10^{16}$~cm$^{-2}$.  If the [CO/H$_2$] abundance ratio were $1.5

240: \times 10^{-4}$, typical of molecular clouds, the column density of

241: H$_2$ would be N(H$_2$) $ = 6 \times 10^{20}$~cm$^{-2}$.  A standard

242: gas to dust ratio and extinction law would then imply $A_V$ = 0.7~mag

243: through the cloud core.  This very low implied extinction is clearly

244: incompatible with the observed large extinction evident in the POSS

245: image from which the L771 dark cloud was identified.  This discrepancy

246: suggests that the CO molecule is substantially depleted by freeze-out

247: onto dust grains in the core of the cloud, as has been seen in many

248: other molecular cloud cores (e.g., Tafalla et al. 2002).  We confirm

249: this conclusion in \S~4.3.

250: 

251: 

252: \subsection{Observations of other molecular lines}

253: 

254: Observations of CB190 were performed with the 105 meter Green Bank

255: Telescope on September 20, 2006.  Five spectral lines were observed

256: simultaneously in dual polarization: NH$_3$ (1,1) and (2,2), CCS $N_J

257: = 1_2 - 2_1$, C$_3$S $J = 4 - 3$, and HC$_5$N $J = 9 - 8$.  The

258: correlator was set up with 6.1~kHz resolution and 8 spectral windows

259: ($4 RR$ and $4 LL$ polarizations) with a 50~MHz bandpass.  The peak

260: $^{13}$CO position was observed for 20 minutes of ON-source

261: integration time while frequency switching with a frequency throw of

262: 4.15~MHz.  The atmospheric optical depth at 1.3~cm was calibrated

263: using the weather model of Ron Maddalena (private communication,

264: 2006).  The average opacity was $\tau_{1.3} = 0.095 \pm 0.010$ during

265: the CB190 observations.  The main beam efficiency was determined from

266: observations of the quasars 3C286 and 3C48 and was $\eta_{mb} = 0.75

267: \pm 0.04$.  The observations were reduced using standard GBTIDL script

268: for frequency-switched observations, calibrated using the latest

269: K-band receiver T$_{cal}$ for each polarization, and corrected for

270: atmospheric opacity and the main beam efficiency.

271: 

272: Michael M. Dunham (private communication, 2006) provided C$^{18}$O J =

273: 2 - 1 and DCO$^+$ J = 3 - 2 observations obtained with the Caltech

274: Submillimeter Observatory.  The observations were performed in

275: position-switching mode with the 50 MHz AOS backend.  The main beam

276: efficiency was measured to be 0.74 during the observing run.

277: C$^{18}$O J = 2 - 1 was detected toward the 24~$\mu$m shadow peak

278: position, but DCO$^+$ was not detected to a 3 $\sigma$ rms of 0.4~ K.

279: 

280: The molecular line emission detected toward CB190 is striking in its

281: lack of diversity.  Only CO isotopomers and NH$_3$ have been detected

282: to date.  The early-time molecules CCS, C$_3$S, and HC$_5$N were not

283: detected with the GBT to a 25~mK (T$_R^*$) baseline rms while the

284: deuteration tracer, DCO$^+$ was not detected in the CSO observations.

285: The NH$_3$ (1,1) line is weak, with a peak T$_R^* = 200 \pm 23$~mK and

286: a narrow linewidth of $\Delta v = 0.47 \pm 0.08$~km~s$^{-1}$.  Since

287: the main line is a blend of many hyperfine lines, the actual linewidth

288: is smaller.  The optical depth is low enough that the satellite lines

289: are barely detected at the $3 \sigma$ level.  Assuming an excitation

290: temperature of 10~K and optically thin emission, the column density of

291: NH$_3$ is $N = 5.4^{+0.6}_{-0.4} \times 10^{12}$~cm$^{-2}$.  This

292: column density is two orders of magnitude below the median column

293: density in the NH$_3$ survey of \citet{jijina99} and is six times

294: lower than their weakest detection.  A modest 20 minute integration

295: time on the GBT can probe very low column densities of NH$_3$.

296: Unfortunately, the (2,2) line was also not detected to the 23~mK

297: baseline rms level; therefore, we cannot independently determine the

298: kinetic temperature of the gas.  The extremely weak NH$_3$ emission

299: and DCO$^+$ non-detection may indicate that CB190 is a relatively

300: young core.  In contrast, there is evidence that CO is depleted

301: indicating that the core is not a nascent dense core. A more extensive

302: and sensitive search for molecular line emission should be attempted

303: toward CB190 to characterize its chemistry.

304: 

305: 

306: \subsection{2MASS Data}

307: 

308: We used the 2MASS All-Sky Point Source Catalog (PSC)

309: \citep{skrutskie06} photometry.  We quote the default J, H, and K-band

310: photometry in this work, labeled j$_{-}$m, h$_{-}$m, and k$_{-}$m in

311: the 2MASS table header.  The magnitudes are derived over a 4$\arcsec$

312: radius aperture.  We use the combined, or total, photometric

313: uncertainties for the default magnitudes, labeled j$_{-}$msigcom,

314: h$_{-}$msigcom, and k$_{-}$msigcom in the 2MASS table header.

315: 

316: 

317: \subsection{SCUBA Data}

318: 

319: We include in this work the \citet{visser02} reduced 850$\micron$

320: SCUBA map of \cbo\ (Claire Chandler, private communication, 2006).

321: This map was convolved with a 32$\arcsec$ FWHM Gaussian beam and is

322: shown in figure~\ref{fig:overscubw} as contours overlayed on the

323: 160~$\micron$ data.  The spatial agreement between the two wavelengths

324: is very good.  We note, however, that the southern edge of the cloud

325: may be artificially sharpened at 850$\micron$ due to the position

326: angle of chopping during the scan map.  Figure~\ref{fig:scuphot} shows

327: photometry for the 70~$\micron$, 160~$\micron$ and 850~$\micron$

328: observations, measured with a 48$\arcsec$ radius aperture centered on

329: the 24~$\micron$ shadow coordinates.  The observed ratio of the long

330: wavelength fluxes is $f_\nu[160\micron]/f_\nu[850\micron] = 3.1$.

331: With this ratio we fit for a cloud temperature using the model

332: \begin{equation}

333: f_\nu \propto \nu^\beta B_\nu(T).

334: \end{equation}

335: We fix the value of $\beta$ at 1.5 and 2.0, a reasonable range of

336: values for dust emissivity \citep{whittet92}, and derive best-fit

337: model temperatures of 12.0~K and 10.4~K, respectively.  These two

338: models are plotted in figure~\ref{fig:scuphot}.  The 160~$\micron$

339: flux is well detected, with a signal to noise ratio $\sim\!20$,

340: indicating that these temperatures are robust.  However, to test the

341: models conservatively, we recalculate model temperatures allowing for

342: 20\% errors in our photometry.  We do not find significant variation in

343: the derived temperatures.  We note that the lack of a detection at

344: 70~$\micron$ mildly favors the colder temperature of 10.4 K.  The $3

345: \sigma$ upper limit to the flux density at 70~$\micron$ is

346: $\sim\!16$~mJy while the predicted values are 17~mJy for the $\beta =

347: 1.5$, T = 12~K model, and 6~mJy for the $\beta = 2.0$, T = 10.4~K

348: model.

349: 

350: \citet{visser02} find that the \cbo\ SCUBA 450~$\micron$ emission is

351: spatially offset from the 850~$\micron$ data for reasons that are not

352: understood.  Because we find good spatial agreement between the

353: 850~$\micron$ data and the 160~$\micron$ image (see

354: fig.~\ref{fig:overscubw}), we do not use the 450~$\micron$ map.  The

355: need for deep sub-mm or mm observations of this region is highlighted

356: by the fact that both of the SCUBA maps have low S/N, suffer from

357: ambiguities in the spatial extent of the cloud due to the chopping

358: position, and have poorly understood spatial disagreements between the

359: 850~$\micron$ and 450~$\micron$ observations.

360: 

361: 

362: \subsection{Optical Spectrum}

363: 

364: We have obtained optical spectra of three stars: HD344204 (star 1 in

365: figure~\ref{fig:overbw}), HD1608, and Vega.  These spectra cover the

366: optical range, from 3615\AA\ to 6900\AA\ with an effective resolution

367: of $\Delta \lambda$ = 9\AA, and were observed in July 2006 at the

368: Steward Observatory Bok 2.3m telescope at Kitt Peak using the Boller

369: and Chivens Spectrograph with a 400/mm grating in first order.  They

370: were processed with standard IRAF data reduction packages.  These data

371: are shown in figure~\ref{fig:sed} and discussed in \SS~3.1 and 3.2.

372: 

373: \section{Analysis}

374: 

375: 

376: \subsection{Two associated stellar sources}

377: 

378: There are two bright sources in the 24$\micron$ image that are likely

379: associated with \cbo.  The first, labeled source 1 in

380: fig.~\ref{fig:overbw}, is a bright point source, just to the north of

381: the 24~$\micron$ shadow, with a large amount of diffuse emission.

382: This star is HD344204 (IRAS 19186+2325), and is located at RA = $19^h

383: 20^m 47^s$, Dec = $23^o 31\arcmin 40.6\arcsec$.  The second star,

384: labeled source 2 in fig.~\ref{fig:overbw}, is spatially coincident

385: with a small peak in the $^{13}$CO emission, and is located at RA =

386: $19^h 20^m 57^s$, Dec = $23^o 31\arcmin 37.6\arcsec$.  The broad-band

387: SEDs of these two sources are plotted in fig.~\ref{fig:phot}, and

388: include 2MASS \citep{skrutskie06} J, H, and K data (see \S~2.3), IRAC

389: [3.6~$\micron$], [4.5~$\micron$], [5.8~$\micron$], and [8.0~$\micron$]

390: data, and MIPS 24~$\micron$ fluxes.  Although star 1 appears to be

391: indistinguishable from the surrounding diffuse emission in

392: figure~\ref{fig:overbw}, this is only due to the scale used to display

393: the image.  To measure the flux of the star while avoiding

394: contamination from the surrounding diffuse emission we use a very

395: small photometry aperture radius, $6.23\arcsec$, and sky annulus,

396: $6.23\arcsec$ to $7.47\arcsec$.  We derive an aperture correction of

397: 2.1 to this flux using an isolated point source, measured with the

398: same aperture geometry as that listed above.  We compare this result

399: to the flux derived using a $13\arcsec$ aperture, a $20\arcsec$ to

400: $32\arcsec$ sky annulus, and the 24~$\micron$ aperture correction

401: recommended by the Spitzer Science Center.  For comparison

402: fig.~\ref{fig:phot} also indicates the 24~$\micron$ flux of Star 1

403: measured with a large aperture with radius $= 30\arcsec$ and an inner

404: and outer sky annulus radius $ = 34\arcsec$ and $38\arcsec$

405: respectively, meant to include all the light from the diffuse emission

406: surrounding the source.

407: 

408: In fig.~\ref{fig:phot} we also show the broad-band SED of source 2.

409: The IRAC colors are ([3.6~$\micron$]-[4.5~$\micron$]) = 0.5 mag, and

410: ([5.8~$\micron$]-[8.0~$\micron$]) = 1.1 mag.  The models by

411: \citet{whitney03} suggest that these colors are consistent with those

412: of a late Class 0 source.  

413: 

414: 

415: \subsection{The Distance}

416: 

417: To understand the nature of the \cbo\ 24~$\micron$ shadow one must

418: measure its physical properties, such as mass and size; to do so one

419: needs an accurate distance.  While star counts are commonly used to

420: estimate distances to nearby clouds, in the case of \cbo\ this method

421: is not reliable due to the small number of foreground sources.

422: Another distance estimator is the LSR velocity relation.  However,

423: this method is not reliable for nearby objects whose motions are still

424: locally dominated, as is the case of \cbo.  \citet{neckel80} estimate

425: the distance to this cloud to be $\sim\!400$~pc using the

426: discontinuity in A$_V$ with distance.  \citet{dame85} argue that this

427: distance is consistent with the narrow line width they measure and

428: therefore reject the other plausible distance to this cloud, that of

429: the Vul OB1 association at 2.3~kpc, noting that this longer distance

430: would imply a much larger mass and line width.

431: 

432: We can obtain a rough estimate of the distance using the colors of

433: source 2 (see fig.~\ref{fig:phot}) and the \citet{whitney03} models.

434: Their color-magnitude ([5.8~$\micron$]-[8.0~$\micron$]) vs.\

435: [3.6~$\micron$] relation for a face-on late Class 0 source, with

436: [3.6~$\micron] \sim 8$~mags, yields a distance $\sim\!700$~pc.  If we

437: assume a model with the same ([5.8~$\micron$]-[8.0~$\micron$]) color

438: but which is slightly more inclined, with a [3.6~$\micron] \sim

439: 9.7$~mags, we obtain a distance $\sim\!330$~pc.  These distance

440: estimates are highly speculative, as the uncertainty in the magnitudes

441: makes the observed colors marginally consistent with later-type models.

442: Furthermore, these models are relatively untested.

443: 

444: In this context, i.e., determining a distance to \cbo, source 1 (see

445: fig.~\ref{fig:overbw}) draws attention for two reasons.  This star has

446: a large amount of diffuse emission at 24 and 70~$\micron$.  It is also

447: coincident with the truncation of the $^{13}$CO emission on the

448: northern edge of \cbo.  Based on these two facts we conclude that

449: source 1 is very likely to be associated with the cloud.  Our spectrum

450: of source 1 shows it to be a B7 star, based on the strong Balmer

451: absorption lines and HeI features that are evident in

452: fig.~\ref{fig:sed}.  Assuming this is a main-sequence star, its

453: distance is $\sim\!400$~pc, and if it is a giant (luminosity class

454: III) its distance is $\sim\!600$~pc.  The broad feature observed in

455: the spectrum of this source near 5700\AA\ may be due to the reddening

456: curve.  As a matter of historical interest, A. J. Cannon classified

457: this star as B9.  In the following analysis, where it is relevant, we

458: assume a distance of $400$~pc. 

459: 

460: 

461: \subsection{Extinction law analysis}

462: 

463: 

464: We have used the IRAC and 2MASS data to probe the extinction law in

465: \cbo.  These data are used to generate the color-color plots shown in

466: fig.~\ref{fig:irac2}.  We calculate the errors in these colors by

467: adding the respective IRAC and 2MASS K-band errors in quadrature; the

468: median values of these errors are plotted in the lower right corner of

469: fig.~\ref{fig:irac2}.  To analyze the colors, we compare the best-fit

470: reddening vector to those measured by \citet{indebetouw05}.  We

471: consider stars to be reddened if their colors are more than $2 \sigma$

472: away from the mean colors of the ensemble.  These reddened stars are

473: indicated in fig.~\ref{fig:irac2} as open boxes.  We then fit the

474: slope of the reddening vector, including both x- and y-errors, using

475: the IDL routine {\it fitexy.pro} \citep{press92}.  We also include the

476: median value of the unreddened stars and assign it zero error.  The

477: resulting reddening vector slope is shown in fig.~\ref{fig:irac2} as a

478: solid black line.  Because this slope agrees reasonably well with the

479: \citet{indebetouw05} extinction vectors, we conclude that the dust

480: found in \cbo\ is not anomalous and that we are justified in using a

481: ``standard'' reddening law to determine the dust properties in this

482: globule.  The agreement with the \citet{indebetouw05} extinction is

483: not surprising because, as was shown in \citet{harris78} and

484: \citet{rieke85}, there is generically almost no difference in the

485: infrared extinction in dense clouds even though the visual bands may

486: deviate significantly from their low-density values.  We note that we

487: exclude source 2, discussed in \S~3.1, from this analysis for two

488: reasons: first, because it has a very large 24~$\micron$ excess, and

489: second, because its broad-band SED is consistent with the colors of a

490: proto-star, being too red to be simply due to a foreground dust screen

491: and a normal star (see fig.~\ref{fig:phot}).

492: 

493: 

494: \subsection{The 24~$\micron$ shadow: Optical depth and column density profile}

495: 

496: The 24~$\micron$ image shows a shadow, or depression in the emission,

497: centered at RA = $19^h 20^m 48^s$, Dec = $+23^o 29\arcmin 45\arcsec$

498: (see fig.~\ref{fig:mips}), coincident with the location of the dark

499: cloud \cbo\ \citep[L771;\ e.g.,][]{clemens88,visser02}.  This shadow,

500: about 70$\arcsec$ in radius, is coincident with the peak in the

501: $^{12}$CO and $^{13}$CO maps (see figs.~\ref{fig:co} and

502: \ref{fig:overbw}), the 160~$\micron$ emission (see

503: fig.~\ref{fig:mips}), and the SCUBA emission (see

504: fig.~\ref{fig:overscubw}).  We do not observe a shadow at 70 and

505: 160~$\micron$.  In fact, at 70~$\micron$ the cloud is at best only

506: marginally detected in emission and may be dominated by the light from

507: source 1 just to the north of the 24~$\micron$ shadow.  The shadow at

508: 24~$\mu$m is a result of the cold and dense material in \cbo\ blocking

509: the background radiation.

510: 

511: In the following derivation of the density profile we correct for the

512: large-scale foreground emission at 24~$\micron$ (see $f_{DC}$ and

513: discussion below).  This large-scale component is likely to be

514: composed mainly of zodiacal light; if we underestimate it we will

515: effectively {\it wash out} the shadow signal and therefore

516: underestimate its optical depth profile, density profile, and mass.

517: Conversely, if we overestimate the large-scale background level, we

518: will also overestimate the optical depth profile.  Keeping this in

519: mind, we estimate the zodiacal contribution by using the darkest parts

520: of the image.  Therefore, strictly speaking, we are deriving an upper

521: limit to the optical depth profile.  This approach is conservative

522: because it allows us to derive a robust profile consistently and

523: independently, without having to use other data to set the

524: normalization of the density profile.  While it is possible that the

525: emission varies on shorter scales and, more specifically, emission

526: from \cbo\ fills in the 24~$\micron$ shadow, we consider this to be

527: unlikely due to the fact that the shadow is not detected at

528: 70~$\micron$.  It is not plausible that \cbo\ would be emitting

529: significantly at 24~$\micron$ while remaining undetected at the longer

530: wavelength.  In the following discussion we describe the method used

531: to derive the optical depth and extinction profile for the

532: 24~$\micron$ shadow.

533: 

534: First, we estimate the overall large-scale uniform background level in

535: the image, $f_{DC}$.  We do so using two dark regions in the image,

536: free from sources, indicated by boxes in fig.~\ref{fig:mips}, one to

537: the North-East and one to the South-West of the shadow, each one about

538: 50$\arcsec$ on a side.  We use the first percentile flux value in

539: these boxes, $f_{DC} = -5.732$~mJy~arcsec$^{-2}$, as a lower limit on the

540: overall uniform level in the image.  We use this background level to

541: set the true image zero level by subtracting it from the original

542: image.  Then we mask out all bright sources in the image by clipping

543: all pixels with values $3 \sigma$ above the mean.  Finally, we use

544: this background-subtracted and bright-source masked image to derive an

545: optical-depth and extinction profile.  For completeness, we estimate

546: the error in $f_{DC}$ by simulating the pixel distribution in the two

547: dark regions.  We estimate $\sigma_{DC}$ by simulating $n_{pix} =

548: 3362$ pixel values drawn from a normal density with mean and standard

549: deviation equal to those measured in the two regions and storing the

550: first percentile pixel value.  We repeat $10^4$ times, and calculate

551: the standard deviation in the simulated $f_{DC}$ of $\sigma_{DC} =

552: 0.083$~mJy~arcsec$^{-2}$.

553: 

554: We proceed by dividing the shadow into regions of nested (concentric

555: and adjacent) annuli $2.5\arcsec$ in width, the inner-most region

556: being a circle with a radius of $2.5\arcsec$.  These regions are

557: centered on the darkest part of the shadow, which is also roughly

558: coincident with the peak in the $^{13}$CO emission.  We measure the

559: average flux per pixel in each region out to a radius of

560: $\sim\!100\arcsec$, chosen to be big enough to allow for a reasonable

561: estimate of the background immediately adjacent to the shadow.  We

562: show the derived radial profile in fig.~\ref{fig:cont}.  Based on this

563: profile, we set the boundary of the shadow to be at a radius of

564: $67\farcs5$ (marked in fig.~\ref{fig:cont} with a solid line) where

565: there is a flattening in the derived profile.  We estimate the

566: background flux by averaging the values of the annuli outside

567: $70\arcsec$ and within $100\arcsec$.  This background value is marked

568: in figure~\ref{fig:cont} with a dashed line.

569: 

570: We use this profile to calculate the optical depth $\tau_{24}$ of the

571: shadow.  In a given annulus $\tau_{24}$ is given by $\tau_{24} = -\ln

572: (I/I_0)$, where $I_0$ is the background level and $I$ is the shadow

573: flux.  The calculated value of $\tau_{24}$ varies from $\sim\!1.5$ at

574: the center to about 0.02 at a radius of $67\farcs5$.  The average mass

575: column density in each annulus is then given by

576: \begin{equation}

577: \Sigma = \frac{\tau_{24}}{\kappa_{abs,24}}f,

578: \end{equation}

579: where $f (= 100)$ is the gas-to-dust ratio, and $\kappa_{abs,24}$ is

580: the absorption cross-section per mass of dust.  In this work we use

581: the value of $\kappa_{abs,24} = 5.283 \times 10^{2}$~cm$^2$~gm$^{-1}$

582: calculated by \citet{draine03a,draine03b} from his $R_V = 5.5$ model.

583: The choice of a model with a high $R_V$ value relative to the diffuse

584: ISM is intended to account for some of the grain-growth effects likely

585: to be taking place in \cbo, as evidenced by the depletion indicated by

586: our $^{12}$CO and $^{13}$CO data.  This column density profile can be

587: converted to an extinction profile using the relation $N(H_2)/$A$_V =

588: 1.87\times10^{21}$~atoms~cm$^{-2}$~mag$^{-1}$ \citep{bohlin78}, where

589: we assume that all of the hydrogen is in molecular form.  We use a

590: value of $R_V = 3.1$, appropriate for the diffuse ISM where this

591: relation was measured, to convert from $E(B - V)$ to $A_V$.  The

592: corresponding extinction is given by

593: \begin{equation}

594: A_{\rm V} = \frac{\Sigma}{1.87\times 10^{21}\,{\rm cm}^{-2}\,{\rm

595:     mag}^{-1} \mu_{\rm H_2} m_{\rm H}}, 

596: \end{equation}

597: where $\mu_{\rm H_2}$ is the effective molecular weight per hydrogen

598: molecule.  The molecular weight per hydrogen molecule is related to

599: the mass fraction of hydrogen, $\mathcal{M({\rm H})}/\mathcal{M}$

600: (where $\mathcal{M} = \mathcal{M({\rm H})} + \mathcal{M({\rm He})} +

601: \mathcal{M({\rm Z})}$), by

602: \begin{equation}

603: \mu_{\rm H_2} = \frac{\mathcal{M}}{m_{\rm H} N(\rm H_2)} =

604: \frac{2\mathcal{M}}{m_{\rm H} N(\rm H)} =

605: \frac{2\mathcal{M}}{\mathcal{M({\rm H})}}.

606: \end{equation}

607: For a cosmic hydrogen mass fraction $\mathcal{M({\rm H})}/\mathcal{M}

608: = 0.71$, $\mu_{\rm H_2} = 2.8$ (Jens Kauffmann - private

609: communication, 2006).  We consider two sources of uncertainty in the

610: column density profile for the 24~$\micron$ shadow: the DC-background

611: error and the uncertainty in our assumed dust model,

612: $\kappa_{abs,24}$.  We measure an error in the DC-background level of

613: $\sigma_{DC} = 0.083$~mJy~arcsec$^{-2}$ (described above).  We then

614: calculate the corresponding uncertainty in A$_V$ by propagating

615: $\sigma_{DC}$ through the equation for $\tau_{24}$ and scaling

616: appropriately.  We estimate the dust model uncertainty to be half of

617: the difference in $\kappa_{abs,24}$ between the \citet{weingartner01}

618: $R_V = 3.1$ model and the $R_V = 5.5$ model.  To obtain an estimate of

619: the total uncertainty in $A_V$, we add these two components and a

620: $10\%$ systematic error floor in quadrature.

621: 

622: The column density profile and corresponding errors are shown in

623: figure~\ref{fig:av} along with individual 2MASS point-source

624: extinction estimates.  We use 2MASS sources with data quality flags

625: better than, and including, ``UBB'', and include ``C'' quality

626: measurements in a bandpass when the other two filters are ``B''

627: quality or better.  Sources with upper limits in two or more bands are

628: rejected.  This selection ensures that we include the maximum number

629: of quality extinction measurements while not biasing the object

630: selection towards stars with lower amounts of reddening.  The

631: reddening of the accepted sources is measured using the $(J - K)$

632: color and the \citet{rieke85} extinction law: $A_V = E(J - K)/0.17$.

633: The ``intrinsic'' $(J - K)_0 = 1.34$ color of the stars is measured in

634: the 70$\arcsec$ to 100~$\arcsec$ annulus centered on the shadow, to

635: isolate the effects of the globule from that of nearby diffuse dust.

636: We reject sources between 0$\arcsec$ and 70$\arcsec$ with $E(J - K)$

637: values lower than $-0.37$, the 1-$\sigma$ value for the scatter in the

638: sources between 70$\arcsec$ and 100$\arcsec$. This 1-$\sigma$ range is

639: marked in figure~\ref{fig:av} with two dotted lines.  Two sources

640: fulfill this criterion, located at r $\sim\!25\arcsec, 67\arcsec$ from

641: the center.  We reject one other source with an A$_V \sim 3$ located

642: at $r \sim 9\arcsec$ on the basis that it is likely to be a foreground

643: object.  We calculate a probability of 1.4\% of finding three

644: foreground stars, using the stellar number densities from the Nearby

645: Stars Database \citep[NStars;][]{henry03}.  It is not surprising that

646: this probability is so low because the NStars catalog is not complete.

647: A more accurate estimate of the likelihood of finding three foreground

648: stars within the shadow is determined as follows.  In the 70$\arcsec$

649: to 100~$\arcsec$ annulus there are three stars with upper limits below

650: A$_V = 0$ and two stars with A$_V < -0.37$.  Furthermore, the

651: 70$\arcsec$ shadow and the surrounding 70$\arcsec$ to 100~$\arcsec$

652: annulus have the same area.  We therefore expect $\sim\!4$ foreground

653: stars in the shadow region, and hence rejecting three stars is

654: reasonable.  Using the remaining stars we calculate the best-fit

655: Gaussian parameters for the distribution of $A_V$ values in two

656: annuli, from 0~$\arcsec$ to 40~$\arcsec$ and from 40~$\arcsec$ to

657: 70$\arcsec$.  Lower limits are not treated differently than proper

658: detections in our fitting procedure.  Therefore, when we plot the mean

659: values from these fits versus average radius the values are shown as

660: lower limits (see fig.~\ref{fig:av}).  The trend of increasing column,

661: or A$_V$, with decreasing radius can be seen clearly.

662: 

663: In this section we have presented a new technique for analyzing

664: 24~$\micron$ shadows which allows for a smooth estimate of the density

665: profile of these cold cloud cores at a 6$\arcsec$ resolution.  Most

666: importantly, this method traces gas and dust down to the densest

667: regions in the cloud.

668: 

669: 

670: \section{Mass estimates}

671: 

672: In the following mass estimates we assume a distance to \cbo\ of

673: 400~pc (cf. \S~3.2).  We present a summary of these calculations in

674: Table~1.  

675: 

676: \subsection{24~$\micron$ shadow mass}

677: 

678: We use the optical depth profile derived in \S~3.4 to calculate the

679: mass of the 24~$\micron$ shadow.  The dust mass in a given annulus is

680: \begin{equation}

681:   M_d = \frac{\tau_{24}}{\kappa_{abs,24}} \Omega_{pix} n_{pix} D^2,

682: \end{equation}

683: where $\tau_{24}$ is the optical depth in the annulus,

684: $\kappa_{abs,24}$ is the absorption cross section per mass of dust at

685: $24\micron$, $\Omega_{pix}$ is the solid angle subtended by a pixel,

686: $n_{pix}$ is the number of pixels in the annulus and $D$ is the

687: distance to the cloud.  Using the $\kappa_{abs,24}$ from the

688: \citet{weingartner01} Milky Way synthetic extinction curve model with

689: $R_V = 5.5$, a gas-to-dust ratio $f=100$, and summing over all the

690: annuli within 70$\arcsec$, we derive a total 24~$\micron$ shadow mass

691: of $9.7\msun$ (see inset of fig.~\ref{fig:av}).  Using equation 4 and

692: standard propagation of errors we find that the fractional error in

693: the mass is equal to 3.3 times the fractional error in the local

694: background flux level, $I_0$ (marked as a dashed line in

695: fig.~\ref{fig:cont}).  For a fractional error in the background level

696: of $4\%$, corresponding to the the $95\%$ confidence interval for the

697: distribution plotted in fig.~\ref{fig:cont}, we calculate a $14\%$

698: error in the mass.  We note that this error analysis does not include

699: other significant systematic sources of error, like differences in

700: calculated dust opacities.  For example, \citet{ossenkopf94} calculate

701: a 24~$\micron$ $\kappa_{abs,24}$ = $8.69 \times

702: 10^{2}$~cm$^2$~gm$^{-1}$ (for the thin ice mantle model generated at a

703: density of $n = 10^6$~cm$^{-3}$), a factor $\sim$ 1.6 greater than the

704: \citet{weingartner01} opacities used here, which would reduce our mass

705: to $\sim\!6\ \msun$.

706: 

707: We adopt a mass of $\sim\!10\ \msun$, although the estimates from the

708: 160~$\micron$ data imply this value may be a lower limit.  This mass

709: is $\sim\!10$ times bigger than the mass derived from the CO

710: observations (see \S~5.1).  Furthermore, for a spherical cloud of the

711: same size and mass as \cbo, and a temperature of 10~K (consistent with

712: both the CO line data and the far infrared to submillimeter continuum

713: fit) we derive a Jeans mass $\sim\!4.1\ \msun$.  While such a low mass

714: would imply instability to collapse if we only consider thermal

715: pressure, this analysis neglects alternate forms of support -- namely

716: turbulence and magnetic fields -- which likely play a significant role

717: in \cbo.

718: 

719: 

720: \subsection{160~$\micron$ mass estimate}

721: 

722: Assuming that the dust is optically thin, the dust mass associated

723: with the 160~$\micron$ emission is given by

724: \begin{equation} 

725:   M_d = \frac{F_\nu D^2}{B_\nu(T) \kappa_{abs,160}},

726: \end{equation}

727: where D is the distance to the cloud and $\kappa_{abs,160}$ is the

728: absorption cross section per mass of dust at $160\micron$.  We use a

729: value for $\kappa_{abs,160} = 40.14$~cm$^2$~gm$^{-1}$, given by the

730: \citet{ossenkopf94} model with thin ice mantles and generated at a

731: density of $n = 10^6$~cm$^{-3}$.  These models account for grain

732: growth effects, which are likely to be taking place inside the cold,

733: dense cloud environment.  These authors show that the effects of grain

734: growth on the opacities are, however, minor.  To calculate the dust

735: mass we integrate the 160~$\micron$ flux within a 6.25~pixel

736: ($100\arcsec$) radius aperture centered on the 24~$\micron$ shadow

737: (and the peak $^{13}$CO emission) and subtract an estimated pixel

738: background level.  We estimate this background per pixel by averaging

739: the flux in an annulus with an inner radius of 20~pixels and a width

740: of 4 pixels.  We assume a gas-to-dust ratio $f = 100$.  A typical

741: temperature for dust grains heated by the interstellar radiation field

742: (IRF) is $\sim\!18$~K \citep{draine03a}; if the cloud is externally

743: heated by the IRF then the total mass, given by equation 4, is

744: $\sim\!1.2\ \msun$.  However, we have shown in \S~2.5 that the

745: temperature of the cloud is in the range of 10.4K to 12K, giving a

746: total mass estimate between $\sim\!45\ \msun$ and $\sim\!14\ \msun$.

747: The \citet{ossenkopf94} models also include opacities for grains with

748: thick ice mantles; this opacity would scale these masses down by a

749: factor of 1.3.  We note that the \citet{weingartner01} $R_V = 5.5$ ISM

750: opacity of $\kappa_{abs,160} = 10.12$~cm$^2$~gm$^{-1}$ yields masses

751: that are larger by a factor of 4.  However, these models do not take

752: into account the grain growth effects that are thought to occur in

753: cold, dense regions.  We note that the temperature of CB190 is not

754: likely be constant throughout the cloud but instead probably decreases

755: inwards; this gradient would bias the 160$\micron$ observations toward

756: hotter dust on the outside of the globule and hence we might

757: underestimate the mass.

758: 

759: 

760: \subsection{CO mass estimate}

761: 

762: We use observations of $^{12}$CO and $^{13}$CO $J = 2 \rightarrow 1$

763: to estimate a mass for \cbo.  We use the $^{12}$CO data to estimate an

764: excitation temperature in the cloud; this temperature is then used in

765: conjunction with the $^{13}$CO data to estimate a mass, using standard

766: assumptions \citep[e.g.,][]{rohlfs04}.  We derive a $^{12}$CO gas

767: temperature $\sim\!10$~K.  For an isotope ratio of

768: [$^{12}$CO/$^{13}$CO] = 50 and a standard non-depleted ratio of

769: $n(CO)/n(H_2) = 1.5\times 10^{-4}$ \citep{kulesa05} we derive a cloud

770: mass $M = 4.2\ \msun$ by summing over the entire $\sim\!10'$ by $10'$

771: area of the image.  For an aperture with a radius of 70$''$ centered

772: on the peak of the $^{13}$CO emission (and the 24$\micron$ shadow) we

773: derive a total gas mass of $\sim\!1.1\ \msun$.  This CO mass is much

774: less than the $9.7\ \msun$ derived from the 24$\micron$ shadow profile

775: (cf.~\S~4.1).  These contradictory mass measurements can be reconciled

776: if freezeout is an important effect, which we consider to be a likely

777: scenario, or if the $n(CO)/n(H_2)$ ratio is over-estimated by about an

778: order of magnitude.  We note that masses derived in this fashion will

779: simply scale with the isotope ratio.  For comparison we calculate the

780: virial mass of the globule.  Using our higher resolution data we

781: measure the FWHM of the $^{13}$CO line to be $0.97$~Km~s$^{-1}$ at the

782: location of the shadow.  However, the C$^{18}$O data suggests that

783: there may be two velocity components broadening the $^{13}$CO line.

784: The line width of the C$^{18}$O observation is roughly $\Delta V

785: \sim\!0.5$~km~s$^{-1}$ at FWHM, in agreement with the NH$_3$

786: linewidth.  However, like the $^{13}$CO line, it appears to have some

787: asymmetry on the red side (see fig.~\ref{fig:hr12}).  If we estimate

788: the total width of the line by doubling the HWHM from the blue side,

789: then we obtain a $\Delta V \sim\!0.2$~km~s$^{-1}$.  We take

790: 0.5~km~s$^{-1}$ as an upper limit on the line width and

791: 0.2~km~s$^{-1}$ as a more plausible value.  These line widths

792: correspond to a virial mass between $18.0 \msun$ and $2.9 \msun$,

793: respectively.  

794: 

795: 

796: \section{Bonner-Ebert models and possible support mechanisms}

797: 

798: When analyzing cold cloud density or extinction profiles it is common

799: to use theoretical density profiles to provide physical insight to the

800: system(s).  Bonnor-Ebert models are one such choice; they are

801: solutions to the isothermal equation, also known as the modified

802: Lane-Emden equation \citep{bonnor56,ebert55}.  The isothermal

803: equation, 

804: \begin{equation}

805:   \frac{d}{d\xi}\left(\xi^2\frac{d\Psi}{d\xi}\right) = \xi^2 e^{-\Psi},

806: \end{equation}

807: describes a self-gravitating isothermal sphere in hydrostatic

808: equilibrium.  Here, $\xi = r/r_c$ is the scale-free radial coordinate,

809: where

810: \begin{equation}

811: r_c = \left( \frac{kT}{4 \pi G \mu m_H\rho_c}\right)^{1/2}

812: \end{equation}

813: is the scale-radius, $r$ is the physical radial coordinate, $G$ is the

814: gravitational constant, $\mu$ (= 2.37) is the mean molecular weight

815: per free particle, $m_H$ is the mass of a hydrogen atom, $k$ is the

816: Boltzmann constant, $T$ is the temperature, and $\rho_c$ is the

817: central mass density. Finally,

818: \begin{equation}

819:   \Psi = -\ln(\rho/\rho_c),

820: \end{equation}

821: where $\rho$ is mass density as a function of radius.  Equation 7 can

822: be solved, with appropriate boundary conditions, to obtain the

823: scale-free radial profile of a Bonnor-Ebert cloud.  The singular

824: isothermal sphere ($ n \propto r^{-2}$) is a limiting solution, with

825: $\xi_{max} \rightarrow \infty$ \citep{chandra39}.

826: 

827: Any given solution to equation (7) is characterized by three

828: parameters: the temperature $T$, the central density $\rho_c$, and the

829: outer radius of the cloud $R$.  Once an outer radius is specified, a

830: model will be in an unstable equilibrium if $\xi_{max} > 6.5$, where

831: \begin{equation}

832: \xi_{max} =  R/r_c.

833: \end{equation}

834: Equivalently, an unstable model will have a density contrast between

835: the center and the edge of the cloud greater than 14.3

836: \citep{ballesteros03}.  For more discussion of Bonnor-Ebert models

837: see, e.g., \citet{evans01}, \citet{ballesteros03}, \citet{harvey03},

838: \citet{lada04} and \citet{shirley05}.

839: 

840: 

841: \subsection{Bonnor-Ebert fits}

842: 

843: We generate a set of Bonnor-Ebert models over a 3-D grid in

844: temperature, outer radius, and central density.  Our temperature grid

845: ranges from T = $8.0$~K to $98.0$~K in steps $\Delta T = 2.0$~K.  Our

846: radial grid varies from $\theta_{max} = 45\farcs0$ to $95\farcs0$ in

847: steps of $\Delta\theta_{max} = 2\farcs0$, and we assume a distance of

848: $400$~pc.  For the central density grid, we vary the $\xi_{max}$

849: parameter from $\xi_{max} = 3.0$ to $19.0$, in steps of $\Delta

850: \xi_{max} = 0.2$.  As can be seen from equations (8) and (10), at fixed

851: temperature and $\theta_{max}$ ($= R/D$, where D = 400~pc is fixed),

852: varying $\xi_{max}$ is equivalent to varying the central density

853: $\rho_c$.  We then integrate our calculated density profiles to obtain

854: column density profiles:

855: \begin{equation}

856: N_{BE}(r) = 2 \times \int^R_r \rho(r')\frac{dr'}{\sqrt{1 - (r/r')^2}},

857: \end{equation}

858: where $r$ is the projected distance from the center of the shadow and

859: the integration is along the line of sight $r'$.

860: 

861: We calculate the best-fit model by finding the minimum $\chi^2$ over

862: the grid in temperature, $\theta_{max}$, and $\xi_{max}$, where

863: \begin{equation}

864: \chi^2 = \sum_i \frac{(N_{i} - N_{BE,i})^2}{\sigma_{i}^2}.  

865: \end{equation}

866: Here, $N_{i}$ is the measured column density, $\sigma_{i}$ is the

867: corresponding uncertainty in $N_{i}$, $N_{BE,i}$ is the Bonnor-Ebert

868: model extinction, and the sum over $i$ represents the integration over

869: the spatial coordinate.  Errors in the best-fit parameters are

870: calculated using a Monte Carlo approach; we generate a set of $10^{3}$

871: A$_V$ extinction profiles, given by equation 3, with values of

872: $f_{DC}$ and $\kappa_{abs,24}$ with normal distributions, described in

873: \S~3.4.  We also include the $10\%$ systematic noise floor in our

874: calculation of the mock A$_V$ profiles.  For each one of these

875: artificial column density profiles we fit a model according to the

876: procedure outlined above.  The errors in the fitted parameters that we

877: quote are the standard deviations in the resulting best-fit parameter

878: distributions.

879: 

880: We find a best-fit Bonnor-Ebert model with a temperature $T = 56.0 \pm

881: 7.3$~K, $\theta_{max} = 69\farcs0 \pm 0.1$, and $\xi_{max} = 7.2 \pm

882: 0.2$.  The central density of this model is $n_c = 1.78 \times

883: 10^5$~cm$^{-3}$.  We show this model with the data in

884: fig.~\ref{fig:fit}.  Despite the reasonably good agreement between the

885: model and the 24~$\mu$m profile, this fit is inconsistent with the

886: molecular data and the SCUBA data: the temperature from the CO line is

887: $\sim\!10$~K while the continuum fit yields a temperature of 10 to

888: 12~K.  We note that reducing the assumed distance to \cbo\ lowers the

889: best-fit model temperature: a distance of 200~pc brings the model

890: temperature down to $\sim\!28$~K.  However, we rule out this short

891: distance based on the likely association of star 1 with \cbo, see

892: fig.~\ref{fig:overbw}.  We discuss this distance in more detail in

893: \S~3.2.  Even though the best-fit $\xi_{max}$ is only slightly greater

894: than 6.5, our best-fit models always have either inconsistently high

895: temperatures or unacceptably small distances.  Therefore we must rule

896: out stable Bonnor-Ebert profiles as accurate representations of \cbo.

897: 

898: 

899: \subsection{Turbulence}

900: 

901: The temperature of \cbo\ is $\sim\!$10~K, based on our 160~$\micron$,

902: 850~$\micron$, and CO observations, typical for cold cores

903: \citep{lemme96,hotzel02}.  This temperature corresponds to a thermal

904: line width of $\Delta V_{th} \sim 0.09$~km~s$^{-1}$ for C$^{18}$O.  As

905: discussed in \S~4.3, the observed line width of the C$^{18}$O

906: observation is between 0.2~km~s$^{-1}$ and 0.5~km~s$^{-1}$, much

907: broader than that expected from thermal support.  We take

908: 0.5~km~s$^{-1}$ as an upper limit on the turbulent line width and

909: 0.2~km~s$^{-1}$ as a more plausible value.

910: 

911: From \citet{hotzel02}, the energy contributed by turbulence to the

912: support of the cloud is

913: \begin{equation}

914:   E_{turb} = \frac{\mu_p}{30}\left( \frac{\Delta V^2}{\Delta V_{th}^2}

915:   - 1 \right)E_{th}

916: \end{equation}

917: Assuming that $\Delta V = \{0.5,0.2\}$~km~s$^{-1}$ then 

918: $E_{turb}/E_{th} = \{3.5,0.5\}$.  In this case, the maximum amount of

919: energy is $E_{tot} = 4.5E_{t}$, which would supply support equivalent

920: to a temperature of $45$K while the more plausible value is only

921: $\sim\!10-15$~K.  These temperatures are lower than our Bonnor-Ebert

922: best-fit value of $T = 56.0 \pm 7.3$~K.  Although turbulence might in

923: fact be a significant source of support in \cbo, it is not likely to

924: provide enough outward pressure to prevent collapse.

925: 

926: 

927: \subsection{Magnetic support}

928: 

929: Here we consider the effects of magnetic fields, an alternative to

930: turbulence as a support mechanism in \cbo.  Under a broad range of

931: conditions, the magnetic pressure is $B^2/8\pi$ \citep{boss97}. From

932: \citet{stahler05}, the mass that can be supported given a cloud radius

933: $R$ and magnetic field magnitude $B$ is

934: \begin{equation}

935: M = 70\msun \left( \frac{B}{10\mu G} \right) \left( \frac{R}{1pc}

936: \right)^2.

937: \end{equation}

938: \cbo\ has an average column density of $\langle N \rangle = 2 \times

939: 10^{22}$~cm$^{-2}$, which corresponds to a line-of-sight magnetic

940: field of $B_{los} = 50$~$\mu G$, given by the observed correlation for

941: 17 clouds with confirmed magnetic field detections \citep{basu04}.  We

942: note that this relation does have a large scatter of about 0.2 dex.

943: Assuming equipartition, the total magnitude of the expected magnetic

944: field is then $B_{tot} = \sqrt 3 \times B_{los} = 87$~$\mu G$.  Using

945: a radius of $R = 0.13$~pc, equation 13 gives a mass $M = 11$~$\msun$.

946: Therefore, the magnetic field could be of sufficient magnitude that it

947: may support this cloud and retard collapse.  This result is

948: interesting because magnetic support is often overlooked in studies of

949: cold cloud cores, yet in the case of \cbo\ it may play a dominant

950: role.  We note that a decrease of 0.2~dex in the magnetic field will

951: make it insufficient to support \cbo.

952: 

953: 

954: \subsection{Comparison with other globules}

955: 

956: \citet{kandori05} summarize observations of the density structure of

957: dark globules. They show that, of 11 starless cores with good density

958: measurements, 7 have profiles consistent with purely thermal support.

959: \citet{teixeira05} report three additional starless cores in Lupus 3,

960: of which two appear to be supported thermally. That is, of 14 such

961: cores, 9 have profiles consistent with pure thermal support. In

962: general, the five cores where an additional support mechanism is

963: required do not have adequate line width measurements to assess the

964: role of turbulence.

965: 

966: Our study of \cbo\ places it among the relatively rare class of cores

967: that cannot be supported purely thermally. Our high resolution line

968: measurements indicate that the turbulence in this core is inadequate

969: for support also. It is plausible that the magnetic field in the

970: globule supplies the deficiency, if it is at an average level measured

971: for other cold cloud cores. If \cbo\ is currently supported in this

972: way, it is at an interesting phase in its evolution.  For the

973: properties of this cloud, the ambipolar diffusion timescale is

974: $\sim\!3 \times 10^6$ yr \citep{stahler05}, which is about a factor of

975: 10 longer than the free-fall collapse timescale.  Thus, it is

976: predicted that magnetically supported cores are unstable over about

977: ten million years, as their magnetic fields leak out through ambipolar

978: diffusion

979: \citep[e.g.,][]{crutcher94,boss97,indebetouw00,sigalotti00,tassis04}.

980: At that point, we would expect \cbo\ to begin collapsing into a

981: star. If the magnetic field is lower than average, this process may

982: already have begun.

983: 

984: 

985: \section{Summary}

986: 

987: We have combined Spitzer MIPS and IRAC data with HHT and GBT

988: millimeter data of \cbo\ and arrive at the following conclusions:

989: 

990: \noindent $\bullet$ We introduce a method for studying the structure

991: of cold cloud cores from the extinction shadows they cast at

992: 24~$\micron$.

993: 

994: \noindent $\bullet$ We derive an $A_V$ profile of the 24~$\micron$

995: shadow that is in good agreement with the reddening estimates derived

996: from the 2MASS data at the outer edges and reaches a maximum value of

997: $\sim\!32$ visual magnitudes through the center.  

998: 

999: \noindent $\bullet$ The mass measured from the optical depth profile

1000: is a factor of $\sim\!2$ greater than the Jeans mass for this object.

1001: 

1002: \noindent $\bullet$ We fit Bonnor-Ebert spheres to our A$_V$ profile

1003: and find that the best-fit temperatures are in contradiction with the

1004: CO observations and the thermal continuum data, which indicate much

1005: lower temperatures for this globule.  We also show that turbulence is

1006: probably inadequate to support the cloud.  However, magnetic support

1007: may be enough to prevent collapse.

1008: 

1009: \noindent These pieces of evidence together form a consistent picture

1010: in which \cbo\ is a cold dark starless core.  Although collapse

1011: cannot be halted with thermal and turbulent support alone, the

1012: magnetic field may contribute enough energy that it could support

1013: \cbo\ against collapse.  Hence, magnetic field support should be

1014: included in evaluating the stability of other cold cloud cores.  \cbo\

1015: appears to be at an interesting evolutionary phase.  It may be in the

1016: first stages of collapse (if the magnetic field is weaker than

1017: average).  Alternately, if it is currently supported by magnetic

1018: pressure, it is expected that collapse may begin in some ten million

1019: years as the magnetic field leaks out of the globule by ambipolar

1020: diffusion.

1021: 

1022: \acknowledgements

1023: The authors thank Charles Lawrence for use of the IRAC GTO time for

1024: this project.  We also thank Michael M. Dunham for providing

1025: unpublished data and Claire J. Chandler for sharing the reduced SCUBA

1026: data.  We also thank Neal J. Evans II for useful discussion and

1027: helpful comments.  AMS thanks Martin E. Pessah for helpful

1028: discussions.  This publication makes use of data products from the Two

1029: Micron All Sky Survey, which is a joint project of the University of

1030: Massachusetts and the Infrared Processing and Analysis

1031: Center/California Institute of Technology, funded by the National

1032: Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National Science

1033: Foundation.  Portions of this work were carried out at the Jet

1034: Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under

1035: contract with the National Aeronautics ans Space Administration.  This

1036: work was supported by contract 1255094 issued by Caltech/JPL to the

1037: University of Arizona.

1038: 

1039: 

1040: \begin{thebibliography}{}

1041: 

1042: \bibitem[Bacmann et al.(2000)]{bacmann00} Bacmann, A., Andr{\'e}, P.,

1043: Puget, J.-L., Abergel, A., Bontemps, S., \& Ward-Thompson, D.\ 2000,

1044: \aap, 361, 555

1045: 

1046: \bibitem[Ballesteros-Paredes et al.(2003)]{ballesteros03}

1047: Ballesteros-Paredes, J., Klessen, R.~S., \& V{\'a}zquez-Semadeni, E.\

1048: 2003, \apj, 592, 188

1049: 

1050: \bibitem[Basu(2004)]{basu04} Basu, S.\ 2004, in Young Local Universe,

1051: Proceedings of XXXIXth Rencontres de Moriond, eds. A. Chalabaev,

1052: T. Fukui, T. Montmerle, and J. Tran-Thanh-Van.  Paris: Editions

1053: Frontieres, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints, arXiv:astro-ph/0410534

1054: 

1055: \bibitem[Bertin \& Arnouts(1996)]{bertin96} Bertin, E., \& Arnouts,

1056: S.\ 1996, \aaps, 117, 393

1057: 

1058: \bibitem[Bohlin et al.(1978)]{bohlin78} Bohlin, R.~C., Savage, B.~D.,

1059: \& Drake, J.~F.\ 1978, \apj, 224, 132

1060: 

1061: \bibitem[Bonnor(1956)]{bonnor56} Bonnor, W.~B.\ 1956, \mnras, 116, 351

1062: 

1063: \bibitem[Boss(1997)]{boss97} Boss, A.~P.\ 1997, \apj, 483, 309

1064: 

1065: \bibitem[Chandrasekhar(1939)]{chandra39} Chandrasekhar, S.\ 1939,

1066: Chicago, Ill., The University of Chicago press [1939],

1067: 

1068: \bibitem[Clemens \& Barvainis(1988)]{clemens88} Clemens, D.~P., \&

1069: Barvainis, R.\ 1988, \apjs, 68, 257

1070: 

1071: \bibitem[Crutcher et al.(1994)]{crutcher94} Crutcher, R.~M.,

1072: Mouschovias, T.~C., Troland, T.~H., \& Ciolek, G.~E.\ 1994, \apj, 427,

1073: 839

1074: 

1075: \bibitem[Dame \& Thaddeus(1985)]{dame85} Dame, T.~M., \& Thaddeus, P.\

1076: 1985, \apj, 297, 751

1077: 

1078: \bibitem[Draine(2003a)]{draine03a} Draine, B.~T.\ 2003a, \araa, 41,

1079: 241

1080: 

1081: \bibitem[Draine(2003b)]{draine03b} Draine, B.~T.\ 2003b, \apj, 598,

1082: 1017

1083: 

1084: \bibitem[Ebert(1955)]{ebert55} Ebert, R.\ 1955, Zeitschrift fur

1085: Astrophysik, 36, 222

1086: 

1087: \bibitem[Evans et al.(2001)]{evans01} Evans, N.~J., Rawlings,

1088: J.~M.~C., Shirley, Y.~L., \& Mundy, L.~G.\ 2001, \apj, 557, 193

1089: 

1090: \bibitem[Fazio et al.(2004)]{fazio04} Fazio, G.~G., et al.\ 2004,

1091: \apjs, 154, 10

1092: 

1093: \bibitem[Gordon et al.(2005)]{gordon05} Gordon, K.~D., et al.\ 2005,

1094: \pasp, 117, 503

1095: 

1096: \bibitem[Gordon et al.(2006)]{gordon06} Gordon, K.~D., et al.\ 2006,

1097: \apjl, 638, L87

1098: 

1099: \bibitem[Gutermuth et al.(2004)]{gutermuth04} Gutermuth, R.~A.,

1100: Megeath, S.~T., Muzerolle, J., Allen, L.~E., Pipher, J.~L., Myers,

1101: P.~C., \& Fazio, G.~G.\ 2004, \apjs, 154, 374

1102: 

1103: \bibitem[Harris et al.(1978)]{harris78} Harris, D.~H., Woolf, N.~J.,

1104: \& Rieke, G.~H.\ 1978, \apj, 226, 829

1105: 

1106: \bibitem[Harvey et al.(2003)]{harvey03} Harvey, D.~W.~A., Wilner,

1107: D.~J., Lada, C.~J., Myers, P.~C., \& Alves, J.~F.\ 2003, \apj, 598,

1108: 1112

1109: 

1110: \bibitem[Henry et al.(2003)]{henry03} Henry, T.~J., Backman, D.~E.,

1111: Blackwell, J., Okimura, T., \& Jue, S.\ 2003, The Future of Small

1112: Telescopes In The New Millennium.~Volume III - Science in the Shadow

1113: of Giants, 111

1114: 

1115: \bibitem[Hotzel et al.(2002)]{hotzel02} Hotzel, S., Harju, J., \&

1116: Juvela, M.\ 2002, \aap, 395, L5

1117: 

1118: \bibitem[Indebetouw \& Zweibel(2000)]{indebetouw00} Indebetouw, R.,

1119: 

1120: \& Zweibel, E.~G.\ 2000, \apj, 532, 361

1121: 

1122: \bibitem[Indebetouw et al.(2005)]{indebetouw05} Indebetouw, R., et

1123: al.\ 2005, \apj, 619, 931

1124: 

1125: \bibitem[Jijina et al.(1999)]{jijina99} Jijina, J., Myers, P.~C., \&

1126: Adams, F.~C.\ 1999, \apjs, 125, 161

1127: 

1128: \bibitem[Kandori et al.(2005)]{kandori05} Kandori, R., et al.\ 2005,

1129:   \aj, 130, 2166

1130: 

1131: \bibitem[Kirk et al.(2007)]{kirk07} Kirk, J.~M., Ward-Thompson, D., \&

1132: Andr{\'e}, P.\ 2007, \mnras, 375, 843

1133: 

1134: \bibitem[Kulesa et al.(2005)]{kulesa05} Kulesa, C.~A., Hungerford,

1135: A.~L., Walker, C.~K., Zhang, X., \& Lane, A.~P.\ 2005, \apj, 625, 194

1136: 

1137: \bibitem[Kutner \& Ulich(1981)]{kutner81} Kutner, M.~L., \& Ulich,

1138: B.~L.\ 1981, \apj, 250, 341

1139: 

1140: \bibitem[Lada et al.(2004)]{lada04} Lada, C.~J., Huard, T.~L., Crews,

1141: L.~J., \& Alves, J.~F.\ 2004, \apj, 610, 3

1142: 

1143: \bibitem[Lee et al.(2003)]{lee03} Lee, J.-E., Evans, N.~J., II,

1144: Shirley, Y.~L., \& Tatematsu, K.\ 2003, \apj, 583, 789

1145: 

1146: \bibitem[Lemme et al.(1996)]{lemme96} Lemme, C., Wilson, T.~L.,

1147: Tieftrunk, A.~R., \& Henkel, C.\ 1996, \aap, 312, 585

1148: 

1149: \bibitem[Lynds(1962)]{lynds62} Lynds, B.~T.\ 1962, \apjs, 7, 1

1150: 

1151: \bibitem[Milam et al.(2005)]{milam05} Milam, S.~N., Savage, C., 

1152: Brewster, M.~A., Ziurys, L.~M., \& Wyckoff, S.\ 2005, \apj, 634, 1126 

1153: 

1154: \bibitem[Neckel et al.(1980)]{neckel80} Neckel, T., Klare, G., \&

1155: Sarcander, M.\ 1980, \aaps, 42, 251

1156: 

1157: \bibitem[Ossenkopf \& Henning(1994)]{ossenkopf94} Ossenkopf, V., \&

1158: Henning, T.\ 1994, \aap, 291, 943

1159: 

1160: \bibitem[Press et al.(1992)]{press92} Press, W.~H., Teukolsky, S.~A.,

1161: Vetterling, W.~T., \& Flannery, B.~P.\ 1992, Cambridge: University

1162: Press, |c1992, 2nd ed

1163: 

1164: \bibitem[Rieke \& Lebofsky(1985)]{rieke85} Rieke, G.~H., \& Lebofsky,

1165: M.~J.\ 1985, \apj, 288, 618

1166: 

1167: \bibitem[Rieke et al.(2004)]{rieke04} Rieke, G.~H., et al.\ 2004,

1168: \apjs, 154, 25

1169: 

1170: \bibitem[Rodr{\'{\i}}guez et al.(2007)]{rodriguez07}

1171: 

1172: Rodr{\'{\i}}guez, L.~F., Zapata, L.~A., \& Ho, P.~T.~P.\ 2007,

1173: \apjl, 654, 

1174: L143

1175: 

1176: \bibitem[Rohlfs \& Wilson(2004)]{rohlfs04} Rohlfs, K., \& Wilson,

1177: T.~L.\ 2004, Tools of radio astronomy, 4th rev.~and enl.~ed., by

1178: K.~Rohlfs and T.L.~Wilson.~ Berlin: Springer, 2004

1179: 

1180: \bibitem[Sault et al.(1995)]{sault95} Sault R.J., Teuben P.J., Wright

1181: M.C.H., 1995, in Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems IV,

1182: ed. R. Shaw, H.E. Payne, J.J.E. Hayes, ASP Conf. Ser., 77, 433-436

1183: 

1184: \bibitem[Shirley et al.(2005)]{shirley05} Shirley, Y.~L., Nordhaus,

1185: M.~K., Grcevich, J.~M., Evans, N.~J., Rawlings, J.~M.~C., \&

1186: Tatematsu, K.\ 2005, \apj, 632

1187: 

1188: \bibitem[Sigalotti \& Klapp(2000)]{sigalotti00} Sigalotti, 

1189: L.~D.~G.,

1190: \& Klapp, J.\ 2000, \apj, 531, 1037

1191: 

1192: \bibitem[Skrutskie et al.(2006)]{skrutskie06} Skrutskie, M.~F., et

1193: al.\ 2006, \aj, 131, 1163

1194: 

1195: \bibitem[Stahler \& Palla(2005)]{stahler05} Stahler, S.~W., \& Palla,

1196: F.\ 2005, The Formation of Stars, by Steven W.~Stahler, Francesco

1197: Palla, pp.~865.~ISBN 3-527-40559-3.~Wiley-VCH , January 2005

1198: 

1199: \bibitem[Tafalla et al.(2002)]{tafalla02} Tafalla, M., Myers, P.~C.,

1200: Caselli, P., Walmsley, C.~M., \& Comito, C.\ 2002, \apj, 569, 815

1201: 

1202: 

1203: \bibitem[Tassis \& Mouschovias(2004)]{tassis04} Tassis, K.,

1204: \& Mouschovias, T.~C.\ 2004, \apj, 616, 283

1205: 

1206: \bibitem[Teixeira et al.(2005)]{teixeira05} Teixeira, P.~S., Lada,

1207:   C.~J., \& Alves, J.~F.\ 2005, \apj, 629, 276

1208: 

1209: \bibitem[Visser et al.(2002)]{visser02} Visser, A.~E., Richer, J.~S.,

1210: \& Chandler, C.~J.\ 2002, \aj, 124, 2756

1211: 

1212: \bibitem[Weingartner \& Draine(2001)]{weingartner01} Weingartner,

1213: J.~C., \& Draine, B.~T.\ 2001, \apj, 548, 296

1214: 

1215: \bibitem[Witt et al.(1990)]{witt90} Witt, A.~N., Oliveri, M.~V., \&

1216: Schild, R.~E.\ 1990, \aj, 99, 888

1217: 

1218: \bibitem[Whitney et al.(2003)]{whitney03} Whitney, B.~A., Wood, 

1219: K.,

1220: Bjorkman, J.~E., \& Cohen, M.\ 2003, \apj, 598, 1079

1221: 

1222: \bibitem[Whittet(2003)]{whittet92} Whittet, D.~C.~B.\ 2003, Dust in

1223: the galactic environment, 2nd ed.~ by D.C.B.~Whittet.~Bristol:

1224: Institute of Physics (IOP) Publishing, 2003 Series in Astronomy and

1225: Astrophysics, ISBN 0750306246

1226: 

1227: \end{thebibliography}

1228: 

1229: %%\clearpage

1230: 

1231: \begin{deluxetable}{lccr}

1232: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

1233: \tablecaption{Summary of mass estimates}

1234: \tablewidth{0pt}

1235: \tablehead{

1236: \colhead{Data} 

1237: & \colhead{Temp. [K]}

1238: & \colhead{Aperture size [$\arcsec$]}

1239: & \colhead{Mass [$\msun$]} 

1240: }

1241: \startdata

1242: 24$\micron$ & \nodata &  \phn70 & 10\ \ \ \ \ \ \\

1243: Jeans Mass & 10 &  \phn70 &  4\ \ \ \ \ \ \\

1244: 160$\micron$$^a$ & 10 & 100 & $\sim$ 45\ \ \ \ \ \ \\

1245: 160$\micron$$^a$ & 12 & 100 &  $\sim$ 14\ \ \ \ \ \ \\

1246: $^{12}$CO \& $^{13}$CO& \nodata & \phn70 &  $\geqslant$ 1$^*$\ \ \ \ \\

1247: C$^{18}$O virial mass$^b$ & \nodata & \phn70 &  3\ \ \ \ \ \ \\

1248: \enddata

1249: \label{tab1}

1250: \tablenotetext{*}{Evidence for CO freezout implies that this value is

1251:   a lower limit.}

1252: \tablenotetext{a}{Indicated as upper limits to allow for grain growth

1253:   in dense regions.}

1254: \tablenotetext{b}{Based on an estimated line width of 0.2~km~s$^{-1}$.}

1255: %%\tablecomments{...}

1256: \end{deluxetable}

1257: 

1258: %%\clearpage

1259: 

1260: 

1261: \begin{figure}

1262:   \epsscale{0.95}\plotone{f1.eps}

1263:   \caption{Gallery of \cbo\ data. The images are centered on the

1264:     $24\micron$ shadow at RA = $19^h 20^m 48^s$, Dec = $+23^o

1265:     29\arcmin 45\arcsec$, and are oriented such that north is up and

1266:     east is to the left.  The images have a height of $24\arcmin$ and

1267:     a width of $12\arcmin$.  The corresponding wavelengths are labeled

1268:     in the top right corners.  The optical image is from the red

1269:     Digital Sky Survey.  The original MIPS mosaic pixel scales are

1270:     $\sim 1\farcs24$ pix$^{-1}$, $9\farcs8$ pix$^{-1}$, and

1271:     $16\arcsec$ pix$^{-1}$, for 24~$\micron$, 70~$\micron$, and

1272:     160~$\micron$ respectively.  The 24~$\micron$ image displayed here

1273:     is binned down by a factor of $4$, and the DSS, $70$, and

1274:     160~$\micron$ images are re-gridded to the same scale.  All four

1275:     images are marked with a 100$\arcsec$ circle centered on the

1276:     location of \cbo.  The 24~$\micron$ image is marked with two $\sim

1277:     50\arcsec \times 50\arcsec$ boxes indicating the background

1278:     regions used to estimate the overall uniform background level (see

1279:     \S~3.3 for more details).  The 160~$\micron$ image shows the

1280:     aperture used for the dust mass determination (see \S~3.2)

1281:     indicated a black circle with a radius of $100\arcsec$, and the

1282:     inner and outer sky annuli radii at $5\farcm3$ and $6\farcm4$,

1283:     both marked as white dashed circles.}

1284:   \label{fig:mips}

1285: \end{figure}

1286: 

1287: %%\clearpage 

1288: 

1289: \begin{figure}

1290:   \epsscale{0.85}\plotone{f2.eps}

1291:   \caption{Gallery of IRAC \cbo\ images centered on the $24\micron$

1292:     shadow: RA = $19^h 20^m 48^s$, Dec = $+23^o 29\arcmin 45\arcsec$.

1293:     The images are oriented such that north is up and east is to the

1294:     left, they are $6\arcmin$ on a side, and the corresponding

1295:     effective wavelengths of the four IRAC channels are labeled.  The

1296:     original mosaiced IRAC image pixel scale is $0\farcs6$ pix$^{-1}$

1297:     and the images displayed here are shown at $1\farcs2$ pix$^{-1}$.

1298:     The black circles are centered on the 24$\micron$ shadow and have

1299:     a radius of 100$\arcsec$.}

1300:   \label{fig:irac}

1301: \end{figure}

1302: 

1303: %%\clearpage 

1304: 

1305: \begin{figure}

1306:   \begin{center}

1307:     \scalebox{0.45}{{\includegraphics{f3a.eps}}{\includegraphics{f3b.eps}}}

1308:     \caption{Maps of the integrated $^{12}$CO (J = 2-1, $\nu$ =

1309:     220.399 GHz) and $^{13}$CO (J = 2-1, $\nu$ = 230.538 GHz) lines

1310:     taken with a FWHM telescope resolution of $32\arcsec$ and

1311:     convolved to a square grid cell spacing of $16\arcsec$.  The

1312:     central coordinates of the images are RA = $19^h 20^m 49^s$, Dec =

1313:     $+23^o 29\arcmin 57\arcsec $.  The color-bars indicate the

1314:     temperature scales in each map.  The $^{12}$CO contour levels are

1315:     2, 3.5, 5, and 6 K, and the $^{13}$CO contour levels are 0.8, 1.4,

1316:     and 2.0 K.  }

1317:     \label{fig:co}

1318:   \end{center}

1319: \end{figure}

1320: 

1321: %%\clearpage 

1322: 

1323: \begin{figure}

1324:   \epsscale{0.65}\plotone{f4.eps}

1325:   \caption{24~$\micron$ image with $^{13}$CO contours overlayed.  The

1326:     image is $\sim\!10\arcmin$ on a side, is centered on the CO map at

1327:     RA = $19^h 20^m 48^s$, Dec = $+23^o 29\arcmin 57\arcsec $, and is

1328:     displayed at the original mosaic pixel scale of $1\farcs24$.  The

1329:     $^{13}$CO contour levels are 0.8, 1.4, and 2.0 K.  The white

1330:     circle is centered on the 24$\micron$ shadow and the peak of the

1331:     $^{13}$CO emission.  The two arrows indicate two sources that are

1332:     likely associated with \cbo; their broad-band SEDs are shown in

1333:     fig.~\ref{fig:sed} and discussed in \S~3.1. }

1334:   \label{fig:overbw}

1335: \end{figure}

1336: 

1337: %%\clearpage

1338: 

1339: \begin{figure}

1340:   \epsscale{0.65}\plotone{f5.eps}

1341:   \caption{High resolution spectra of $^{12}$CO and $^{13}$CO J = 2 -

1342:     1 lines at the position of the peak CO optical depth, which

1343:     coincides with the center of the 24~$\mu$m shadow.  The spectral

1344:     resolution of the $^{13}$CO line is 0.25 MHz or 0.34~km~s$^{-1}$,

1345:     and the resolution of the $^{12}$CO line is 0.05~MHz or

1346:     0.061~km~s$^{-1}$ (R = 5,000,000).  The vertical scale of the

1347:     $^{13}$CO spectrum is multiplied by 2.5.  Total integration time

1348:     was 15~min on source.  RMS noise in the $^{12}$CO spectrum is

1349:     0.12~K (main-beam brightness temperature.  The dotted line shows

1350:     the C$^{18}$O J = 2 - 1 spectrum obtained with the Caltech

1351:     Submillimeter Observatory at a spectral resolution of 0.1~MHz or

1352:     0.13~km~s$^{-1}$ (Michael M. Dunham - private communication,

1353:     2006).  The vertical scale of the C$^{18}$O spectrum is multiplied

1354:     by 6.}

1355:   \label{fig:hr12}

1356: \end{figure}

1357: 

1358: %%\clearpage 

1359: 

1360: \begin{figure}

1361:   \epsscale{0.65}\plotone{f6.eps}

1362:   \caption{160$\micron$ image detail, centered on the 24$\micron$

1363:       shadow, with 850$\micron$ contours overlayed in black.  The

1364:       160$\micron$ image is shown at the original mosaic pixel scale

1365:       of $16\farcs0$~pix$^{-1}$.  The 850$\micron$ contour levels are

1366:       0.1, 0.2, 0.3 and 0.4~Jy~beam$^{-1}$, and the beam is a

1367:       $32\arcsec$ FWHM Gaussian.  The grey circle indicates the

1368:       location of the 24 $\micron$ shadow and is 48$\arcsec$ in

1369:       radius.}

1370:   \label{fig:overscubw}

1371: \end{figure}

1372: 

1373: %%\clearpage

1374: 

1375: \begin{figure}

1376:   \epsscale{0.95}\plotone{f7.eps}

1377:   \caption{70$\micron$, 160$\micron$, and 850$\micron$ photometry

1378:     using a 48$\arcsec$ radius aperture centered on the 24$\micron$

1379:     shadow coordinates.  We show two models for the dust emission with

1380:     the indicated assumed values of $\beta$ and the corresponding

1381:     best-fit temperatures.  }

1382:   \label{fig:scuphot}

1383: \end{figure}

1384: 

1385: %%\clearpage

1386: 

1387: \begin{figure}

1388:   \epsscale{0.95}\plotone{f8.eps}

1389:   \caption{F$_\lambda$ vs. $\lambda$ for three stars: star 1

1390:     (HD344204, top), HD1608 (middle), and Vega (bottom).  The data

1391:     extend from 3615\AA\ to 6900\AA\ at 9\AA\ resolution.}

1392:   \label{fig:sed}

1393: \end{figure}

1394: 

1395: 

1396: %%\clearpage

1397: 

1398: \begin{figure}

1399:   \epsscale{0.95}\plotone{f9.eps}

1400:   \caption{Broad-band SEDs of two sources associated with \cbo; we

1401:     show the 2MASS, IRAC and MIPS magnitudes.  The $\times$'s show the

1402:     magnitudes of star 1 (HD344204), at RA = $19^h 20^m 47^s$, Dec =

1403:     $23^o 31\arcmin 40.637\arcsec$.  The solid circle indicates the

1404:     magnitude of star 1 using a large aperture to include the dust

1405:     emission surrounding the source.  The open squares show the

1406:     magnitudes of star 2, at RA = $19^h 20m 57^s$, Dec = $23^o

1407:     31\arcmin 37.6\arcsec$.  }

1408:   \label{fig:phot}

1409: \end{figure}

1410: 

1411: %%\clearpage

1412: 

1413: \begin{figure}

1414:   \epsscale{0.95}\plotone{f10.eps}

1415:     \caption{Color-color plot of stars observed towards \cbo.  We

1416:       combine 2MASS K-band data with 3.6~$\micron$ and 5.8~$\micron$

1417:       IRAC channels.  The squares indicate the reddened stars,

1418:       selected with a 2-$\sigma$ clipping criterion, and the filled

1419:       circles indicate the unreddened stars.  The black arrow shows

1420:       the best-fit extinction vector slope of 1.2, in good agreement

1421:       with the \citet{indebetouw05} extinction slopes.  The median

1422:       errors for the data are shown in the lower right.  The

1423:       extinction vector derived from the K-[3.6$\micron$]

1424:       vs. K-[4.5$\micron$] colors also shows good agreement with

1425:       \citet{indebetouw05}.  }

1426:     \label{fig:irac2}

1427: \end{figure}

1428: 

1429: %%\clearpage

1430: 

1431: \begin{figure}

1432:   \epsscale{0.95}\plotone{f11.eps}

1433:   \caption{The radial flux profile for the $24$~$\micron$ shadow.  The

1434:     squares indicate the mean counts per pixel in each $2\farcs5$

1435:     annulus.  The chosen truncation radius for the shadow, at

1436:     $67\farcs5$ is marked as a solid line; the local background flux

1437:     level $I_0$ is marked with a dashed line.}

1438:   \label{fig:cont}

1439: \end{figure}

1440: 

1441: %%\clearpage

1442: 

1443: \begin{figure}

1444:   \epsscale{0.95}\plotone{f12.eps}

1445:   \caption{Comparison of the CB190 column density profiles: the

1446:     $24$~$\micron$ shadow profile is shown with dark grey squares, and

1447:     the individual $2$MASS stellar A$_V$ estimates are marked with

1448:     light grey filled circles.  The two dotted lines indicate the

1449:     1-$\sigma$ scatter in the 2MASS data just outside the globule,

1450:     between 70$\arcsec$ and 100$\arcsec$.  The black symbols indicate

1451:     the best-fit Gaussian mean values for the 2MASS data in three

1452:     radial bins, inside 40$\arcsec$, 40$\arcsec$ to 70$\arcsec$, and

1453:     70$\arcsec$ to 100$\arcsec$, and are plotted versus the average

1454:     radius in each respective bin; the two inner-most points are shown

1455:     as lower limits (black arrows) because of the inclusion of

1456:     individual 2MASS lower limits in the best-fit Gaussian

1457:     calculation.  The inset shows the corresponding enclosed mass for

1458:     the $24$~$\micron$ extinction profile.  }

1459:   \label{fig:av}

1460: \end{figure}

1461: 

1462: %%\clearpage

1463: 

1464: \begin{figure}

1465:   \epsscale{0.95}\plotone{f13.eps}

1466:   \caption{The $24$~$\micron$ column density profile (squares) is

1467:   shown with the best-fit Bonnor-Ebert model (solid line).  The errors

1468:   in the data are about the size of the squares.  The best-fit model

1469:   parameters are indicated: temperature T $= 56.0$~K, $\theta_{max} =

1470:   69\farcs0$, and $\xi_{max} = 7.2$.  The right-hand-side vertical

1471:   axis indicates the magnitudes of visual extinction, or equivalently,

1472:   $\tau_{24}$, the optical depth at 24~$\mu$m.}

1473:   \label{fig:fit}

1474: \end{figure}

1475: 

1476: \end{document}

1477: 

1478: