1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2:
3:
4: \newcommand{\hhh}{H$_3^+$}
5: \newcommand{\hone}{H~\small I\normalsize}
6:
7:
8: \begin{document}
9:
10:
11: \title{\hhh\ in Diffuse Interstellar Clouds: A Tracer for the Cosmic-Ray
12: Ionization Rate}
13:
14: \author{Nick Indriolo\altaffilmark{1},
15: Thomas R. Geballe\altaffilmark{2},
16: Takeshi Oka\altaffilmark{3},
17: and Benjamin J. McCall\altaffilmark{1}}
18:
19: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Astronomy and Department of Chemistry, University of
20: Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801; nindrio2@uiuc.edu, bjmccall@uiuc.edu}
21: %\altaffiltext{1}{Department of Astronomy, University of Illinois at
22: %Urbana-Champaign, 1002 West Green Street, Urbana, IL 61801}
23: %\altaffiltext{2}{Department of Chemistry, University of Illinois at
24: %Urbana-Champaign, 600 South Mathews Avenue, Urbana, IL 61801}
25: \altaffiltext{2}{Gemini Observatory, 670 North A'ohoku Place, Hilo, HI 96720}
26: \altaffiltext{3}{Department of Astronomy \& Astrophysics and Department of
27: Chemistry, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637}
28:
29:
30: \begin{abstract}
31: Using high resolution infrared spectroscopy we have surveyed twenty sightlines for \hhh\
32: absorption. \hhh\ is detected in eight diffuse cloud
33: sightlines with column densities varying from $0.6\times10^{14}$~cm$^{-2}$ to
34: $3.9\times10^{14}$~cm$^{-2}$.
35: This brings to fourteen the total number of diffuse cloud sightlines where \hhh\ has been detected.
36: These detections are mostly along sightlines concentrated in the Galactic plane, but well dispersed
37: in Galactic longitude. The results imply that abundant \hhh\ is common
38: in the diffuse interstellar medium. Because of the simple chemistry associated with \hhh\ production and destruction,
39: these column density measurements can be used in concert with various other data to infer the primary cosmic-ray ionization
40: rate, $\zeta_p$. Values range from $0.5\times10^{-16}$~s$^{-1}$ to $3\times10^{-16}$~s$^{-1}$ with an average of
41: $2\times10^{-16}$~s$^{-1}$. Where \hhh\ is not detected the upper limits on the ionization rate are consistent with this range.
42: The average value of $\zeta_p$ is about an order of magnitude larger than both the canonical rate and rates previously reported
43: by other groups using measurements of OH and HD. The discrepancy is most likely due to inaccurate measurements of rate constants
44: and the omission of effects which were unknown when those studies were performed.
45: We believe that the observed column density of \hhh\ is the most direct tracer for the cosmic-ray ionization rate due to its simple
46: chemistry. Recent models of diffuse cloud chemistry
47: require cosmic-ray ionization rates on the order of 10$^{-16}$~s$^{-1}$ to reproduce observed abundances of various atomic and
48: molecular species, in rough accord with our observational findings.
49: \end{abstract}
50:
51: \keywords{astrochemistry -- cosmic rays -- ISM: clouds -- ISM: molecules}
52:
53: \section{INTRODUCTION}
54:
55: In the past several years \hhh\ has been detected in diffuse interstellar clouds \citep{mcc98,mcc02,geb99} where it had been
56: expected to exist in abundances below observable limits. This surprising result raised various questions about the diffuse
57: cloud environment. The rather simple chemistry of \hhh\ allows for only three variable parameters in determining its abundance
58: when the steady state approximation is used: the \hhh-electron recombination rate, the electron to
59: hydrogen ratio, and the cosmic-ray ionization rate. Previous work \citep{mcc03,mcc04,car96} has shown that the first two of
60: these are relatively well constrained. This leaves the cosmic-ray ionization rate as an unconstrained parameter.
61: Because the low energy cosmic-rays responsible for most of the ionization in diffuse clouds cannot be directly
62: measured in the solar system, we must rely on molecules to act as tracers of the ionization rate.
63: Using \hhh, \citet{mcc03} found the cosmic-ray ionization rate of molecular hydrogen, $\zeta_2$, to be much larger
64: along the sightline to $\zeta$~Per than the canonical value of $\sim 3\times10^{-17}$~s$^{-1}$.
65:
66: Prior to the detection of \hhh\ in diffuse clouds, OH and HD were the molecules of choice for estimating
67: the cosmic-ray ionization rate there. Estimates using these molecules required determining
68: rate constants and modeling various reactions on
69: the pathways to forming OH and HD \citep{bla77,fed96,odo74}. The derived values of the ionization rate tended to agree with
70: the canonical value of $\zeta_p$, the primary cosmic-ray ionization rate, but differ greatly from the value derived from
71: the recent \hhh\ measurement toward $\zeta$~Per (the relation between $\zeta_p$ and $\zeta_2$ is explained in \S~4.2 and quantified
72: by equation (\ref{eq10})).
73: Of the three molecules, the simple chemistry of \hhh\ provides the most direct determination of $\zeta_p$
74: \citep{dal06}, suggesting that measurements of \hhh\ should produce more accurate results and be a more reliable tracer of the
75: cosmic-ray ionization rate than OH or HD.
76:
77: The higher ionization rate found by \citet{mcc03} towards $\zeta$ Per implies the production of more \hhh,
78: and if generally applicable, could
79: account for the higher than expected column densities found in several diffuse clouds \citep{mcc02}. However, prior to
80: the present work the enhanced ionization rate was known to exist for certain only along one line of sight,
81: and thus could have been considered an anomaly.
82: To test if an enhanced ionization rate is a general property of the diffuse interstellar medium (ISM), we have performed
83: a survey of \hhh\ in nineteen diffuse
84: cloud sightlines. \hhh\ is detected in eight of the clouds and the overall results, including analysis of previous
85: observations by our group, support a higher ionization rate. When coupled with further arguments, this strongly suggests
86: that a greatly enhanced ionization rate is a typical property of the diffuse ISM.
87:
88: \section{METHODS}
89:
90: \subsection{Observations}
91:
92: All observations were made using the CGS4 spectrometer \citep{mou90} on the United Kingdom Infrared Telescope (UKIRT)
93: at Mauna Kea. The spectrometer was used with its echelle grating, 0.6 arcsec wide slit, and long camera to provide a resolving
94: power of 40000. Observations were taken in an ABBA pattern in which the target star is nodded along the slit so that the
95: spectral image falls alternately on different rows of the array. Suitable standard stars were observed
96: throughout each night to account for changing atmospheric conditions and air mass. With the exception of the
97: Red Rectangle where reddening is due to the ejected envelope of a post asymptotic giant branch star, targets
98: were chosen primarily by
99: three criteria: (1) sightlines known to pass through diffuse clouds; (2) early spectral type; and (3) bright L-band
100: magnitude. The complete dataset consists of twenty (nineteen diffuse cloud) sightlines which were observed
101: intermittently between May 2001 and March
102: 2005. Relevant information concerning these observations is given in Table \ref{tbl1}. Two of the sightlines from the dataset
103: were examined in \citet{mcc02}: HD~20041 and $\zeta$~Oph. However, both have previously been studied using only the $R(1,1)^l$
104: transition at 37154.8 \AA\ (vacuum wavelengths are used throughout this paper), whereas the new data cover the
105: $R(1,1)^u$ and $R(1,0)$ transitions at 36680.8~\AA\ and 36685.2~\AA,
106: respectively (see \citet{mcc00} or \citet{mcok00} for a complete description of the
107: transition notation associated with \hhh).
108: $\zeta$~Per was investigated in \citet{mcc03}, but here data from three more nights
109: of observations are included. Overall, we
110: present twenty sightlines for which new or refined \hhh\ column densities or upper limits are calculated.
111:
112:
113: \subsection{Data Reduction}
114: The reduction process involves multiple steps and software packages. First, raw data are run through Starlink's
115: ORAC-DR\footnote{http://www.oracdr.org/} pipeline which processes UKIRT data. Images are then transformed to fits format
116: using Starlink's FIGARO\footnote{http://www.starlink.rl.ac.uk/star/docs/sun86.htx/sun86.html} package, and neighboring images
117: are subtracted from each other in NOAO's
118: IRAF\footnote{http://iraf.noao.edu/} package. This subtraction serves to eliminate atmospheric background and detector bias
119: levels from the image. Still using IRAF, spectra are extracted from the neighbor-subtracted images with the {\it apall}
120: routine. These spectra are imported to IGOR Pro\footnote{http://www.wavemetrics.com/} where we have macros set up to complete
121: the reduction \citep{mccth}.
122: During this import, ripples in the spectrum caused by guiding and seeing fluctuations while the CGS4 array is shifted along the
123: spectral direction in successive steps of one-third of a pixel during observing are removed.
124: Spectra for each object and standard star are then coadded. Some frames
125: may be excluded in this step if they are noisier than normal or happen to have cosmic-ray hits on the rows where the
126: spectrum is located. Objects are then ratioed with standards to remove atmospheric absorption lines and the continuum level is
127: set to unity. The ratioing is an interactive process where the user may vary the intensity scaling and/or shift the spectrum
128: in wavelength in order to most effectively
129: remove atmospheric lines and obtain the most reliable ratioed spectrum at the wavelengths where the \hhh\ lines are expected
130: to appear. A fringing pattern caused by the circular variable order-blocking filter is another artifact of CGS4 that
131: needs to be removed. This is accomplished by transforming a spectrum into Fourier space using an IGOR macro. The
132: user can then find the peak caused by the fringing pattern and interpolate across it. Once the peak is removed, an inverse
133: Fourier transform is performed to produce a spectrum where the fringing pattern is absent. This method is described in more
134: depth in \citet{mccth}. After removing the fringing pattern, spectra are wavelength calibrated using the vacuum rest
135: wavelengths of the atmospheric lines. The accuracy of the wavelength calibration is typically $\pm$2~km~s$^{-1}$.
136: Finally, the \hhh\
137: lines are fit with Gaussians and the equivalent widths, column densities, and radial velocities are derived.
138:
139: For targets with observations on multiple nights, the reduction process above is followed
140: through the wavelength calibration step. At that point IRAF's {\it rvcorrect} routine is used to calculate the velocity of
141: the Earth along a given sightline in the local standard of rest (LSR) frame. Each spectrum is then shifted to be in the LSR
142: frame. This puts the interstellar absorption lines at the same wavelength for any given date and allows spectra from different
143: nights to be coadded. While each spectrum has its continuum set to unity, they originally had different exposure times and
144: intensities. To weight the final coadded spectrum properly, each spectrum is scaled by its original coadded
145: intensity before being added to the spectra from other nights. Once the final multiple night coadded spectrum is produced, it
146: is divided by the sum of the scaling factors to reset the continuum level to unity. After this process, line parameters are
147: again extracted by fitting the absorption lines.
148:
149:
150:
151: \subsection{Atmospheric Interference}
152:
153: Spectra covering the \hhh\ doublet are adversely affected by an atmospheric CH$_4$ line complex which lies just shortward of
154: 36680.8 \AA, the rest wavelength of the $R(1,1)^u$ line. If the spectrum of the target is blue-shifted, the overlap with this
155: line can be significant and hinder detection or estimates of line strength. Typical examples of spectra before the atmospheric
156: lines are removed via ratioing with a standard star are shown in Figure \ref{fig1}. The CH$_4$ feature here absorbs roughly
157: 50\% of the incoming light at 36675.3~\AA\ in both the standard star $\beta$~Per (middle spectrum) and the object
158: $\zeta$~Per (bottom spectrum). A weak telluric HDO absorption line near 36681~\AA\ that can vary with both time and
159: airmass further complicates the reduction, especially when the water column density above the telescope is high and unstable.
160: When the two spectra are ratioed following the methods in \S~2.2, the top spectrum in Figure \ref{fig1} is
161: produced. The two lines show the rest wavelength positions of the $R(1,1)^u$ line at 36680.8~\AA\ and the $R(1,0)$ line at
162: 36685.2~\AA. Two arrows mark the expected positions of the \hhh\ lines due the Earth's orbital motion and the radial
163: velocity of the absorbing cloud along the line of sight towards $\zeta$~Per. Clearly the \hhh\ absorption lines are much
164: weaker than the atmospheric absorption lines and are barely visible at this scaling factor. This illustrates why a careful
165: multi-step reduction process is necessary to detect \hhh.
166:
167:
168: \section{RESULTS}
169: \subsection{Positive Detections}
170:
171: The fully reduced spectra are shown in Figures \ref{fig2}-\ref{fig5}. Figures \ref{fig2} and \ref{fig3} contain
172: spectra from sightlines with positive \hhh\ detections, and Figures \ref{fig4}
173: and \ref{fig5} show spectra from sightlines with no \hhh\ detections or marginal detections. Arrows indicate the
174: position of the \hhh\ doublet expected from previous measurements of the gas
175: velocity along each line of sight. These velocities are
176: given in Table \ref{tbl2} along with the atomic or molecular species from which they were determined. In the figures the
177: typical noise level can be judged by the peak-to-peak fluctuations in the continuum well off of the \hhh\ lines. Within several
178: \AA ngstr\"{o}ms of 36675.3~\AA, however, the noise in the reduced spectra is several times larger than elsewhere due to the
179: presence of the strong complex of CH$_4$ lines, which both reduces the atmospheric transmission and emits excess background.
180:
181: The three spectra in Figure \ref{fig2} have the strongest \hhh\ absorption. In each case the lines match up with
182: the arrows so we are confident in the \hhh\ detection. In HD~20041 the $R(1,0)$ transition is clearly visible but the
183: $R(1,1)^u$ transition may have been affected by the
184: aforementioned CH$_4$ line. Both absorption lines are clear and strong in HD~229059. W40~IRS~1a presents a somewhat confusing
185: case because there may be either one or two velocity components. If there is one component, then the two absorption lines
186: to longer wavelengths represent the \hhh\ doublet and the shorter wavelength line at 36677~\AA\ is a noise artifact.
187: If there are
188: two absorption components, then the $R(1,0)$ transition from the shorter wavelength doublet overlaps the $R(1,1)^u$ transition
189: from the longer wavelength doublet. However, the W40~IRS~1a spectrum is composed of data from two nights and on only one of
190: those nights does the 36677~\AA\ feature appear. For this reason we conclude that only the longer wavelength doublet is
191: real. Our conclusion is consistent with the observations reported by \citet{cru82} in which only one velocity component
192: at about 8~km~s$^{-1}$ LSR was seen in $^{13}$CO emission, but does not match the 2$\pm$2~km~s$^{-1}$ LSR reported by
193: \citet{shu99} from $^{12}$CO absorption. Note, however, that if the other line is real then it would correspond to a
194: cloud with a radial velocity of about -30~km~s$^{-1}$ LSR, which disagrees badly with both CO measurements.
195:
196: In Figure \ref{fig3} the absorption lines are again aligned with the arrows marking previously observed gas velocities.
197: $\zeta$~Per and HD~21389 have the highest signal to noise ratios (SNR) and their \hhh\ lines are easily
198: identified. The doublet in X~Per is relatively clear, but the velocities found by fitting the individual line profiles
199: differ by 2.5~km~s$^{-1}$. Most likely this is due to noise affecting the absorption feature. In HD~169454
200: the $R(1,0)$ transition of the main doublet is clear, but the $R(1,1)^u$ line is rather shallow. As in the case of HD~20041
201: above, this may be caused by interference from the telluric CH$_4$ line. However, the velocity we derive for the $R(1,0)$
202: transition differs from the previously measured cloud velocity by about 3.2~km~s$^{-1}$. Because of the different velocities
203: and the lack of a clear $R(1,1)^u$ line, we are not as confident as in the previous cases that these features represent
204: \hhh\ absorption, but still consider it a positive detection. The shorter arrows above the HD~169454 spectrum mark the
205: expected location of the \hhh\ doublet for a high velocity component at 90~km~s$^{-1}$ reported by \citet{fed92}. Our
206: spectrum may indicate absorption features at this velocity, but further integration time is needed to determine if the
207: features are real. The absorption features in BD~-14~5037 both appear to be double peaked, although the signal-to-noise
208: ratio of each double peak is low. It also seems that there are small absorption features on the shorter wavelength shoulders of
209: the main features. Two velocity components reported by \citet{gre86} match well with the centers of the double peaked features
210: and the shoulder features, making the detections more believable.
211:
212: \subsection{Negative Detections}
213:
214: There is no definitive evidence for \hhh\ absorption lines in any spectrum in Figure \ref{fig4}, with the possible exception
215: of $o$~Per. The arrow marking the $R(1,0)$ transition of \hhh\ in $o$~Per matches rather well with a statistically
216: significant absorption feature in the spectrum. However, at the expected wavelength of the $R(1,1)^u$ line the absorption is too
217: weak to attempt a fit given the noise level. Both $\xi$~Per and $\epsilon$~Per show some amount of absorption near the
218: wavelengths where the \hhh\ lines are expected, but nothing that can be conclusively identified as a detection. The Red
219: Rectangle and $\zeta$~Oph sightlines both have a very high SNR. With these clean spectra and no \hhh\ absorption, it is
220: possible to derive strict upper limits. HD~147889, 40~Per, and $o$~Sco all have no significant absorption features close
221: to the expected wavelengths. Figure \ref{fig5} contains two non-detections in spectra with typical noise levels
222: (HD~168625 and $\lambda$~Cep) and two with high noise levels (HD~21483 and 62~Tau).
223:
224:
225: \section{ANALYSIS}
226:
227: By fitting the absorption lines in the spectra with Gaussians we are able to obtain the line of sight velocity,
228: full width at half maximum, equivalent width, and the \hhh\ column density and its uncertainty. Values for these parameters
229: along all of the observed sightlines are given in Table \ref{tbl3}. Using these values in concert with the steady state
230: approximation and a few reasonable assumptions allows for the calculation of other physical parameters of the diffuse
231: clouds along these lines of sight.
232:
233: \subsection{Reactions}
234:
235: Below are the three reactions which describe the dominant creation and destruction processes for \hhh. Reactions (\ref{eq1})
236: and (\ref{eq2}) show the formation process, while reaction (\ref{eq3})
237: shows destruction.
238: \begin{equation}
239: {\rm CR} + {\rm H}_2 \rightarrow {\rm CR} + {\rm H}_2^+ + {\rm e}^-
240: \label{eq1}
241: \end{equation}
242: \begin{equation}
243: {\rm H}_2 + {\rm H}_2^+ \rightarrow {\rm H}_3^+ + {\rm H}
244: \label{eq2}
245: \end{equation}
246: \begin{equation}
247: {\rm H}_3^+ + {\rm e}^- \rightarrow {\rm H}_2 + {\rm H}\ {\rm or}\ 3{\rm H}
248: \label{eq3}
249: \end{equation}
250:
251: First, H$_2$ is ionized to produce H$_2^+$ and an electron. This ionization is assumed to be due to a
252: cosmic-ray because \citet{gla74} showed that low energy cosmic-rays will penetrate diffuse clouds while
253: the X-ray flux is attenuated in a thin layer at the cloud exterior. They find that for an X-ray with energy
254: 100~eV the optical depth of the cloud reaches unity at an H$_2$ column density of
255: $2\times10^{19}$ cm$^{-2}$. Because most of our sightlines have column densities much larger than this
256: we assume that cosmic-rays are the only ionization mechanism operating throughout the majority of
257: the cloud. After being
258: ionized the H$_2^+$ ion reacts with H$_2$ to produce \hhh\ and H. The second step is many orders of
259: magnitude faster than the first step \citep{mcc98}, so the formation rate of \hhh\ is proportional to the
260: product of the ionization rate and H$_2$ density. In diffuse clouds the primary channel of \hhh\ destruction
261: is electron recombination, which results in either three H atoms or one H atom and one H$_2$ molecule. The
262: destruction rate is given by a rate constant times the product of the number densities of \hhh\ and
263: electrons.
264:
265:
266:
267: \subsection{Calculations}
268:
269: The steady state approximation assumes that the formation and destruction rates
270: of \hhh\ are equal. This approximation yields the equation \citep{geb99}
271: \begin{equation}
272: n({\rm H}_2)\zeta_2 = k_e n({\rm H}_3^+)n(e)
273: \label{eq4}
274: \end{equation}
275: where $n$(X) is the number density of species X, $\zeta_2$ is the ionization rate of
276: H$_2$, and $k_e$ is the \hhh-electron recombination rate constant.
277: In contrast to the steady state approximation,
278: time dependent models developed by \citet{lis07} showed that the abundance of \hhh\ is only weakly
279: dependent on the cosmic-ray ionization rate when a cloud is young. This age is quantified by the
280: ratio of molecular hydrogen to atomic hydrogen
281: $n({\rm H}_2)/n({\rm H})$ where smaller values correspond to younger clouds.
282: The \hhh\ abundance becomes weakly dependent on the cosmic-ray ionization rate when
283: $n({\rm H}_2)/n({\rm H})\leq0.05$. This value corresponds to a molecular
284: hydrogen fraction (defined below in equation (\ref{eq6})) of $f\leq0.09$. Because the H$_2$
285: fractions in all of the clouds we observed are more than double this value, we
286: neglect time dependence and use the steady state approximation.
287:
288: Assuming that gas is uniformly distributed in the cloud, we can substitute the
289: column density divided by the path length for the number density. By doing this
290: and solving for the ionization rate we obtain
291: \begin{equation}
292: \zeta_2=N({\rm H}_3^+)\frac{k_e}{L}\frac{n(e)}{n({\rm H}_2)}.
293: \label{eq5}
294: \end{equation}
295: We further assume that nearly all
296: hydrogen is either in the atomic or molecular state, and define the
297: molecular hydrogen fraction (the fraction of hydrogen nuclei in molecular form) as
298: \begin{equation}
299: f\equiv\frac{2n({\rm H}_2)}{n({\rm H})+2n({\rm H}_2)}
300: \label{eq6}
301: \end{equation}
302: where the denominator is the number density of hydrogen nuclei, $n_{\rm H}$. Solving
303: for $n({\rm H}_2)$ and plugging the result back into the ionization rate
304: equation we find
305: \begin{equation}
306: \zeta_2=N({\rm H}_3^+)\frac{k_e}{L}\frac{2}{f}\frac{n(e)}{n_{\rm H}}.
307: \label{eq7}
308: \end{equation}
309: In this form it is possible to measure or estimate all of the variables on the
310: right hand side of the equation, so we can derive values for the
311: ionization rate of molecular hydrogen.
312:
313: The electron recombination rate constant is given by the equation
314: \begin{equation}
315: k_e = -1.3\times10^{-8} + 1.27\times10^{-6}T_e^{-0.48}\ ({\rm cm}^3\ {\rm s}^{-1})
316: \label{eq8}
317: \end{equation}
318: from \citet{mcc04} which is valid when the electron temperature, $T_e$, is between 10 K and 4000
319: K. While $T_e$ is not directly
320: measured, it can be approximated by the excitation temperature derived from the $J=0$ and $J=1$
321: levels of molecular hydrogen, $T_{01}$. This temperature is calculated from measurements of
322: the column densities of the two levels. In sightlines without these measurements we adopt a
323: value of 60~K.
324: The fact that the observed lines of the $J=0$ and $J=1$ levels of H$_2$ are saturated indicates
325: that few photons are present in the interior of diffuse clouds to radiatively pump these levels.
326: This means that collisions will dominate the equilibrium between these levels. However, the
327: $J=0$ and $J=1$ levels of H$_2$ have different nuclear spin configurations and thus require
328: collisions with species such as H$^+$ or \hhh\ to interconvert \citep{sno06}. If
329: collisions with protons are the dominant factor in determining the relative population of the
330: $J=0$ and $J=1$ levels though, then $T_{01}$ should represent the proton kinetic temperature
331: and thus the kinetic temperature of the gas in general \citep{sav77}. While electrons produced
332: by photoionization may begin with much higher temperatures, they should thermalize quickly via
333: collisions with H$_2$ \citep{mcc02}. Because $T_e$ and $T_{01}$ should both nearly equal the
334: kinetic temperature of the gas, we substitute $T_{01}$ for $T_e$ in equation (\ref{eq8}).
335:
336: Assuming that nearly all electrons in diffuse clouds are
337: produced via the ionization of C to C$^+$
338: and that nearly all atomic carbon has been singly ionized
339: \citep{van86}, the carbon to hydrogen ratio
340: should approximate the electron to hydrogen ratio.
341: \citet{car96} found this value to be about $1.4\times10^{-4}$ in multiple diffuse clouds. Because
342: of the relative uniformity of this ratio in all six of their sightlines,
343: we adopt a single average value for use in all of our calculations.
344:
345: The molecular hydrogen fraction is dependent on H and H$_2$ number densities, quantities which surely
346: vary through the cloud, but whose variations are not readily measurable.
347: Because fluctuations in number density cannot be directly measured, we use column densities in place of
348: the number densities in equation (\ref{eq6}) and calculate what \citet{sno06} refer to as $f^N$
349: in clouds where we
350: have measurements of the H and H$_2$ column densities. However, $f^N$ is most likely an underestimate of
351: $f$ in the more molecular regions of the cloud which contain higher concentrations of \hhh. This is because atomic
352: hydrogen is more widely distributed than molecular
353: hydrogen and column densities measure material along the entire line of sight \citep{sno06}.
354: Since the measurement of $N$(H) includes
355: material not associated with H$_2$, $f^N$ underestimates the H$_2$ fraction in the molecular region. For
356: sightlines where measurements are lacking we use $f=0.67$, the value for which the column densities of
357: H and H$_2$ are equal.
358:
359: When possible, estimates of the number density of hydrogen nuclei, $n_{\rm H}$, are adopted from the literature based on various
360: atomic and molecular diagnostics. In eleven of our sightlines
361: \citet{son07} used the observed rotational excitation of C$_2$ to infer the sum of the H and H$_2$ number densities. This
362: was done by comparing models with various temperatures and number densities to the measured column densities of all the
363: excited states and choosing the best fit. For sightlines where the average value of $f$ is known, they converted
364: $n({\rm H}+{\rm H}_2)$ to $n_{\rm H}$. For sightlines where $f$ is not known, our adopted value of $f=0.67$
365: is used to perform the conversion. In two additional cases \citet{jur75} measured column densities of H and the $J=4$
366: excited level of H$_2$,
367: and with some assumptions estimated the product $Rn_{\rm H}$, where $R$ is the rate at which H$_2$ forms on grains. Adopting
368: a typical value for $R$ then allowed for the computation of $n_{\rm H}$. In one more sightline (40 Per)
369: \citet{jen83} estimated the
370: thermal pressure from measurements of the $J=0$, 1, and 2 fine-structure levels of C for a kinetic
371: temperature of 80~K.
372: Using this pressure estimate and the H$_2$ temperature ($T_{01}=63$~K), we calculate $n_{\rm H}$.
373: Unfortunately, the results obtained for a given sightline by using each of these methods can be
374: significantly different. For example, in the sightline toward $\zeta$ Oph \citet{son07}, \citet{jur75}, and \citet{jen83}
375: derived values of 215~cm$^{-3}$, 90~cm$^{-3}$, and 117~cm$^{-3}$, respectively for $n_{\rm H}$. Because of the uncertainties
376: involved with each method and the different final results, the number densities we use are probably uncertain by about a factor
377: of two. For cases where no number density has been determined, a value of 250 cm$^{-3}$ is adopted.
378:
379: Again assuming a uniform distribution of gas in each cloud, we divide the total hydrogen column
380: densities by these number densities to obtain pathlengths:
381: \begin{equation}
382: L = \frac{N_{\rm H}}{n_{\rm H}} = \frac{N({\rm H})+2N({\rm H_2})}{n_{\rm H}}.
383: \label{eq9}
384: \end{equation}
385: In sightlines where no H and H$_2$ column densities have been determined, the total hydrogen column density is estimated
386: from the color excess and the relation
387: $N_H\approx E(B-V)\times5.8\times10^{21}$~cm$^{-2}$ \citep{boh78,rac02}. As the pathlength is calculated directly from the
388: hydrogen number density, it is also uncertain by about a factor of two.
389: Using the above relations and approximations, we calculate the ionization rate of molecular hydrogen,
390: $\zeta_2$. However, most studies examine the primary cosmic-ray ionization rate per hydrogen atom,
391: $\zeta_p$. While the ionization efficiencies of H and H$_2$ are dependent on factors such as
392: the helium abundance and
393: ratio of molecular to atomic hydrogen \citep{dal99}, we adopt a more simplified approach and use the
394: conversion factor given by \citet{gla74}:
395: \begin{equation}
396: \zeta_2 = 2.3\zeta_p.
397: \label{eq10}
398: \end{equation}
399: This conversion stems from the fact that H$_2$ contains two hydrogen atoms, so the ionization rate
400: is nearly twice as high. Also, $\zeta_p$ only accounts for the initial (primary) cosmic-ray ionization
401: while $\zeta_2$ includes ionization from energetic secondary electrons which were created in the first
402: ionization event. With equation (\ref{eq10}) we convert our values of $\zeta_2$ to $\zeta_p$ so that
403: they can be directly compared to previous observations. The resulting values for the primary
404: cosmic-ray ionization rate and the specific estimates used for each sightline are shown in
405: Table \ref{tbl4}. For completeness, we have performed the same analysis for ten sightlines from
406: \citet{mcc02} and also included the results in Table \ref{tbl4}.
407:
408: With all of the assumptions we have made, it is important to investigate the uncertainties that will
409: propagate to the cosmic-ray ionization rate. Substituting equations (\ref{eq9}) and (\ref{eq10}) into
410: equation (\ref{eq7}) gives the primary cosmic-ray ionization rate as
411:
412: \begin{equation}
413: \zeta_p = \frac{2}{2.3}N({\rm H}_3^+)\frac{n_{\rm H}}{f}\frac{k_e}{N_{\rm H}}\left[\frac{n(e)}{n_{\rm H}}\right].
414: \label{eq11}
415: \end{equation}
416:
417: In this equation, the molecular hydrogen fraction, $f$, and the number density of hydrogen nuclei, $n_{\rm H}$,
418: are the two most uncertain parameters (note that the $n_{\rm H}$ in the denominator is part of the
419: ratio $n(e)/n_{\rm H}$ which is well determined).
420: Because $\zeta_p$ is directly
421: proportional to $n_{\rm H}$, any increase or decrease in $n_{\rm H}$ produces a corresponding increase or
422: decrease in $\zeta_p$. As previously mentioned, the uncertainty in $n_{\rm H}$ is probably about a factor of 2.
423: On the other hand, $\zeta_p$ is inversely related to $f$. The H$_2$ fraction
424: is by definition between zero and one, and most of our measured values are around 0.5. For sightlines with
425: the adopted value of 0.67, the maximum increase is a factor of 1.5. We take this factor to be an
426: approximation for the uncertainty in $f$. Because $f^N$ should always be an underestimate of $f$ in measured
427: sightlines, we only consider increasing the molecular hydrogen fraction for those sightlines.
428: Taking into account the uncertainties in both $n_{\rm H}$ and $f$, the true value of $\zeta_p$ in sightlines
429: with measurements of $f^N$ is likely between one third and twice our derived estimate of $\zeta_p$.
430: For sightlines with no measured H$_2$ fraction, we allow $f$ to
431: vary both up or down by a factor of 1.5. This results in a possible cosmic-ray ionization rate
432: between $\zeta_p$/3 and 3$\zeta_p$. These limits arise when the most extreme variations in both
433: $f$ and $n_{\rm H}$ are substituted into equation (\ref{eq11}). However, $f$ tends to be higher when $n_{\rm H}$ is higher
434: because the rate of H$_2$ formation
435: scales as the square of $n_{\rm H}$.
436: This suggests that it is probable that $f$ and $n_{\rm H}$ will vary in the same way, so that the
437: above analysis most likely overestimates the range of possible ionization rates.
438:
439: \subsection{\hhh\ Temperature}
440: Another property of the gas to be examined is the excitation temperature, determined from relative populations of the
441: different rotational states of \hhh. For the two lines we have observed the temperature may be determined from the equation
442: \begin{equation}
443: \frac{N_{ortho}}{N_{para}} = \frac{g_{ortho}}{g_{para}}e^{-\Delta E/kT} = 2e^{-32.87/T}
444: \label{eq12}
445: \end{equation}
446: taken from \citet{mcc98}. In this case {\it ortho} refers to the population of the (1,0) state and {\it para} to the
447: (1,1) state. The $g$'s are statistical weights, $\Delta E$ is the energy difference between the
448: states, $k$ is the Boltzmann constant, and $T$ is the temperature. Excitation temperatures derived from this
449: equation are shown in Table \ref{tbl4}.
450:
451: If the rotational (de-)excitation of \hhh\ is dominated by collisions with H$_2$, then the temperature
452: measurements from both species should be similar. However, this is not the case. Most H$_2$ temperatures are around 60~K
453: while the \hhh\ temperatures are typically about 30~K. This same discrepancy was described by \citet{mcc03}. In their model
454: calculation of \hhh\ thermalization, \citet{oka04} have shown that the (1,1)/(1,0) excitation temperature is always lower than
455: the H$_2$ temperature because of cooling by fast spontaneous emission from the (2,2) to (1,1) state. For the typical cloud
456: conditions in this paper ($n_{\rm H}\sim250$~cm$^{-3}$, $T\sim60$~K) the model of \citet{oka04} produces an \hhh\ excitation
457: temperature of about 50-55~K which is significantly higher than the observed values of about 30~K.
458: The source of this discrepancy remains unclear.
459:
460:
461: \section{Discussion}
462: \subsection{Inferred Ionization Rates}
463:
464: Values of the cosmic-ray ionization rate for diffuse clouds observed here as well as those determined for other diffuse
465: clouds observed previously by us are given in the right hand column of Table \ref{tbl4}. The detected values in the lines of
466: sight to fourteen sources cover the range 0.5--3.2$\times10^{16}$~s$^{-1}$. Upper limits, which are given for fifteen
467: diffuse clouds, are consistent with this range of ionization rates, with the possible exception of HD~168607. While most of the
468: detections of \hhh\ are confined to the Galactic plane, they are widely dispersed in Galactic longitude. We therefore
469: conclude that the values of the cosmic-ray ionization
470: rate listed in Table \ref{tbl4} are typical for Galactic diffuse interstellar clouds.
471:
472: A few of the sightlines we investigated have been studied previously to derive cosmic-ray ionization rates. All of these
473: studies used column densities of either OH, HD, or both in their calculations. Because the formation pathways of OH and HD
474: include the ionization of atomic hydrogen, they can be used to determine the H ionization rate. Most of these studies
475: \citep{bla77,bla78,har78a,fed96} then derived the primary cosmic-ray ionization rate from the H ionization rate, but
476: \citet{odo74} did not because they still considered ionization via X-rays to be important. Our values of the primary
477: ionization rate
478: for $\zeta$~Per, $o$~Per, $\epsilon$~Per, $\xi$~Per, and $\zeta$~Oph are shown in
479: Table \ref{tbl5} along with the rates derived from OH and HD measurements as well as
480: cloud modeling. For $\zeta$~Per our value is over an order of magnitude larger than
481: those reported by \citet{har78b} and \citet{fed96}. While the rest of our new measurements in Table \ref{tbl5}
482: are only upper limits, these are also typically orders of magnitude larger than previously
483: published values. The only exception is $o$~Per where both papers cite
484: values of $\zeta_p$ about one fourth to one half our upper limit.
485:
486: Various model calculations were performed by \citet{van86} to investigate three of the sightlines that we
487: study here: $\zeta$~Oph, $\zeta$~Per, and $o$~Per. In creating these models they used the most recent measurements of rate
488: constants and the column densities of diagnostic species such as H and H$_2$ as input parameters. By varying a few uncertain
489: parameters, they would then generate lists of predicted column densities for many atomic and molecular species under slightly
490: different conditions. When their paper was written, it was believed that the \hhh-electron recombination
491: rate constant was much lower than the currently accepted value.
492: \citet{smi84} reported an upper limit correspnding to $10^{-7}$~cm$^3$~s$^{-1}$ at $T=40$~K, and \citet{ada87} lowered
493: the upper limit to $10^{-11}$~cm$^3$~s$^{-1}$ at $T=80$~K.
494: Due to the wide range of possible recombination rate constants, \citet{van86} performed
495: calculations using both $10^{-7}$ and $10^{-10}$~cm$^3$~s$^{-1}$. The cosmic-ray ionization rates from their paper
496: listed in Table \ref{tbl5} were computed by
497: determining $\zeta_p$ necessary to reproduce observed OH column densities when $k_e=10^{-7}$ cm$^3$ s$^{-1}$. We choose to
498: compare these ionization rates to ours because we obtain $k_e=1.6\times10^{-7}$ cm$^3$ s$^{-1}$ when $T=60$ K
499: is used as the input temperature in equation (\ref{eq8}).
500: The value of $\zeta_p$ inferred by \citet{van86} is about the same as ours for $\zeta$~Per, but the lower
501: limits they derived for $\zeta$~Oph and $o$ Per are larger than our upper limits for both of those sightlines.
502:
503: For their models that used $k_e=10^{-10}$ cm$^3$ s$^{-1}$, \citet{van86} obtained cosmic-ray ionization rates
504: that are about a factor of 1 to 5 times smaller than ours. From these models they also predicted
505: the column density of \hhh\ along each sightline. Their results are all on the order of
506: $N$(\hhh)~$\sim10^{14}$ cm$^{-2}$, which is a few times larger than the observed column densities or upper
507: limits in any of these sightlines.
508: Because \citet{van86} use only a slightly smaller cosmic-ray ionization rate (corresponding to the formation
509: rate) but a much smaller recombination rate (corresponding to the destruction rate), their prediction of an
510: \hhh\ column density similar to observed values seems somewhat serendipitous. In addition to the overestimate
511: of the \hhh\ column density, a small \hhh-electron recombination rate constant may have further consequences.
512: \citet{dal06} noted that a small value of $k_e$ may have been responsible for underestimates of the primary
513: cosmic-ray ionization rate in the past. This is because a slower destruction rate requires a slower formation
514: rate to produce a given abundance.
515:
516: In addition to the slow recombination rate, there are some other possible explanations for differences
517: between the cosmic-ray ionization rate inferred from \hhh\ and those inferred from OH and HD.
518: \citet{lep04} pointed out that the rate constant associated
519: with the endothermic charge transfer from H$^+$ to O varies over the temperatures typically
520: associated with diffuse clouds. This means that the OH production rate is temperature dependent.
521: The ionization rates towards $\zeta$ Per and $\zeta$ Oph quoted in \citet{har78b} were derived using
522: temperatures of 120 K and 110 K, respectively, for the warm components of the cloud models along each
523: sightline \citep{bla78,bla77}. As these temperatures are about twice as
524: large as the values determined from H$_2$, their OH production is much more efficient. The
525: result is a smaller cosmic-ray ionization rate needed to produce the observed OH column density
526: than if a lower temperature had been used. This problem was addressed by the later models of
527: \citet{van86} where tempertaure and density were varied as functions of cloud depth.
528:
529: \citet{lep04} went on to make a comprehensive chemical model of the cloud towards
530: $\zeta$~Per. They determined the value of
531: $\zeta_p$ that would best reproduce all observed atomic and molecular column densities to be
532: $2.5\times 10^{-16}$ s$^{-1}$, which is in good agreement with our estimate
533: of $3.2\times 10^{-16}$ s$^{-1}$. The difference in these values may arise
534: because we assume a uniform distribution of gas while \citet{lep04} invoke a three phase
535: model which includes diffuse gas, dense gas, and magnetohydrodynamic shocks.
536:
537: Two different effects may lead to underestimates of $\zeta_p$ from measurements of HD. The first has
538: to do with an overestimate of the total deuterium to hydrogen ratio $n_{\rm D}$/$n_{\rm H}$. This ratio can be
539: used to estimate the molecular deuterium fraction, $N({\rm HD})/N({\rm H}_2)$. However,
540: the observed values of $N({\rm HD})/N({\rm H}_2)$ are about an order of magnitude smaller than those
541: predicted by $n_{\rm D}$/$n_{\rm H}$. To explain this discrepancy, \citet{lis06} argued that the atomic deuterium
542: fraction must be larger than the total deuterium fraction. This means that approximating $n_{\rm D}$/$n_{\rm H}$
543: with $N({\rm D})/N({\rm H})$ overestimates the
544: total deuterium to hydrogen ratio.
545: \citet{fed96} showed that the cosmic-ray ionization rate is inversely related to the deuterium fraction,
546: so an overestimate of $n_{\rm D}$/$n_{\rm H}$ will underestimate $\zeta_p$.
547:
548: Secondly, \citet{lis03} emphasized the importance of grain neutralization proposed by \citet{lep88}.
549: This process reduces the number of
550: H$^+$ ions in the gas through charge transfer with small grains. By lowering the abundance of H$^+$,
551: the production rate of HD will decrease. This is because HD formation is dependent upon the reaction
552: involving the charge transfer from H$^+$ to D. Since neutralization slows down HD production, a larger
553: value of $\zeta_p$ is needed to create a given abundance than if the effect were not taken into
554: account. \citet{lis03} used a
555: model which includes grain neutralization and showed that both \hhh\ and HD column densities
556: can be reproduced with a single ionization rate of $\zeta_p \geq 2\times 10^{-16}$ s$^{-1}$.
557: Since OH formation is dependent on a similar charge transfer reaction,
558: grain neutralization and thus a larger cosmic-ray ionization rate may be necessary in its analysis as
559: well.
560:
561: \citet{mcc03} studied \hhh\ in the sightline towards $\zeta$~Per. Using nearly the same
562: analysis as this paper, they inferred a value of $\zeta_2 = 1.2 \times 10^{-15}$~s$^{-1}$
563: which is equivalent to $\zeta_p = 5.2\times 10^{-16}$~s$^{-1}$ shown in Table \ref{tbl5}. This higher
564: ionization rate is due to
565: various differences in input parameters. In terms of the parameters in this paper,
566: \citet{mcc03} used 1.5$k_e$, 1.2$N$(\hhh), 1.2$n_{\rm H}$, and 0.8$n(e)/n_{\rm H}$ for the
567: following reasons. The \hhh-electron
568: recombination rate constant differs because they approximated the electron temperature with the
569: \hhh\ temperature instead of the H$_2$ temperature in equation (\ref{eq8}). Further observations have
570: more than doubled the total integration time so that the spectrum and \hhh\ column density change
571: slightly between papers. The value of $n_{\rm H}$ used by \citet{mcc03} was an average
572: number density computed from various measurements, whereas the value used in this
573: paper comes from the C$_2$ analysis of \citet{son07}. Finally, we have adopted a
574: single value of $n(e)/n_{\rm H}$ to be used in all calculations while they used H$_2$ and C$^+$
575: column densities measured towards $\zeta$~Per.
576:
577: While all of the observations and models above are viable methods for finding the cosmic-ray
578: ionization rate, we believe that the use of \hhh\ should produce the best results due to
579: its relatively simple chemistry. Using either OH or HD to calculate $\zeta_p$ requires more
580: measurements, more assumptions, and more variable parameters than using \hhh. More parameters
581: give the opportunity for a greater uncertainty to accumulate during the calculation. Fewer uncertainties
582: coupled with advances in instrumentation lead us to speculate that the cosmic-ray ionization rates
583: inferred from \hhh\ may be the most accurate to date for diffuse clouds. However, improved estimates of
584: $f$ and $n_{\rm H}$, the two most uncertain values in our calculations, would make \hhh\ an even better
585: probe of the cosmic-ray ionization rate.
586:
587: \subsection{Theoretical Ionization Rates}
588:
589: Several theoretical calculations of $\zeta_p$ have been performed in the last half-century
590: \citep{hay61,spi68,nat94,web98}. In these papers the authors derived a cosmic-ray ionization
591: rate starting from the observed flux of cosmic-rays in our solar system. Unfortunately, there
592: are large uncertainties associated with this method. The cosmic-ray spectrum is well measured
593: above about 1~GeV, but lower energy particles are deflected from the inner solar system by the
594: magnetic field coupled to the solar wind. The particles which are most important for ionizing
595: species in diffuse clouds are likely those with energies from about 2 to 10~MeV. Since this
596: portion of the spectrum cannot be directly measured, the flux at low energies must somehow be
597: extrapolated from existing data. \citet{hay61} assumed that the power law which applies to
598: the flux of high energy cosmic-rays continues down to 10 MeV where the spectrum peaks and then
599: decreases linearly with energy. From these assumptions they derived an ionization rate of
600: $10^{-15}$~s$^{-1}$. \citet{spi68}, however, fit a curve to measurements of
601: cosmic-rays with energies near 100~MeV that also matches the high energy spectrum power law.
602: With this method, their
603: spectrum peaks around 100 MeV and falls off for lower energies. The result of using their fit
604: is a lower limit of $6.8\times10^{-18}$~s$^{-1}$. In the same paper they derived
605: an upper limit of $1.2\times10^{-15}$~s$^{-1}$ via arguments that low energy
606: cosmic-ray protons are accelerated in Type~I supernova shells. \citet{web98} used data from the
607: {\it Pioneer} and {\it Voyager} spacecraft as they travelled outward in the solar system where the
608: weaker solar wind allows for the detection of lower-energy cosmic-rays. These data were then
609: combined with previous observations to infer the interstellar proton spectrum. Using this proton
610: spectrum and a heavy nuclei spectrum both with low energy cut-offs at 10~MeV and an electron spectrum
611: cut-off below 2~MeV, \citet{web98} calculated the primary cosmic-ray ionization rate to be $(3-4)\times
612: 10^{-17}$ s$^{-1}$. Our ionization rates fall
613: neatly within the bounds formed by these studies and so are not inconsistent with constraints based on direct cosmic-ray
614: measurements and theoretical particle physics.
615:
616: \subsection{The Ionization Rate in Dense Clouds}
617:
618: In contrast to our findings in diffuse clouds, the cosmic-ray ionization rate in dense clouds does
619: seem to agree with the canonical value. Observations of \hhh\ towards dense clouds have found column
620: densities roughly the same as those seen in diffuse clouds \citep{geb96,mcc99}. These measurements
621: have been used to calculate the product $\zeta_2L$. When $\zeta_2$ is taken to be the canonical value
622: of $\sim 3\times10^{-17}$~s$^{-1}$, the resulting pathlength is on the order of a parsec. This is a
623: typical size for dense clouds as measured by other methods such as extinction mapping. Since \hhh\
624: should be a reliable tracer for the cosmic-ray ionization rate in both environments, there must be some
625: mechanism causing the difference between dense and diffuse clouds.
626: One possibility examined by both \citet{ski76} and \citet{pad05}
627: is cosmic-ray self-confinement. In this process cosmic-rays generate
628: Alfv\'{e}n waves which can effectively confine the lower energy particles ($\lesssim100$~MeV) to diffuse
629: material, thus preventing them from entering dense clouds. Because cosmic-rays in the 1--100~MeV range
630: are the most efficient at ionization, self-confinement naturally leads to a higher ionization rate in diffuse
631: clouds than in dense clouds. Another possibility is that there is a previously unrecognized high flux of
632: low energy cosmic-rays that can penetrate diffuse but not dense clouds. Assuming that typical column densities
633: of diffuse clouds are of order $10^{21}$~cm$^{-2}$ and those of dense clouds are of order $10^{23}$~cm$^{-2}$,
634: cosmic-rays with energies $\sim$2--20 MeV \citep{cra78} would contribute to the
635: ionization rate only in diffuse clouds. As we foresee no observational techniques that would distinguish between
636: these two possibilities, a resolution to this question will depend on more sophisticated theoretical treatments.
637:
638: \section{SUMMARY \& CONCLUSIONS}
639: We have surveyed twenty sightlines and detected \hhh\ along eight of them. Column
640: densities are measured for these eight sightlines, and upper limits set for the remaining
641: twelve. Besides a concentration near the Galactic plane, there seems to be no clear correlation
642: between location in the sky and detecting \hhh, so it
643: is unlikely that we are observing anomalous regions in the Galaxy. Instead, finding \hhh\ in so many
644: sightlines suggests that it is ubiquitous in the diffuse ISM.
645:
646: From the \hhh\ column densities and the steady state approximation, we
647: derive cosmic-ray ionization rates for the nineteen diffuse cloud sightlines in this study along with ten
648: sightlines from \citet{mcc02}. Typical values are on the order of $\zeta_p\approx2\times10^{-16}$
649: s$^{-1}$, which falls within theoretical constraints. While this is an order of magnitude
650: larger than most previously inferred values, there are
651: several possible explanations for the discrepancy. The most likely candidates are rate
652: constants with uncertain measurements and physical or chemical effects not included in past models.
653: Newer models that do take into account these factors require cosmic-ray ionization rates very similar
654: to our inferred values. Coupled with these models, our widespread detection of \hhh\ in diffuse
655: clouds supports the idea that the typical cosmic-ray ionization rate in such regions should be
656: revised upward by about an order of magnitude.
657: \\
658:
659: The authors would like to thank J. H. Black and H. S. Liszt for helpful comments and suggestions,
660: and acknowledge the staff of UKIRT and the developers of the data
661: reduction packages used in this paper.
662: The United Kingdom Infrared Telescope is operated by the Joint Astronomy Centre on behalf of the U.K.
663: Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council.
664: The ORAC-DR and FIGARO software packages were provided by the Starlink Project which
665: is run by CCLRC on behalf of PPARC.
666: NI and BJM have been supported by NSF grant PHY 05-55486.
667: TO has been supported by NSF grant PHY 03-54200. TRG's research is supported by the Gemini Observatory,
668: which is operated by the Association of Universities
669: for Research in Astronomy, Inc., on behalf of the international Gemini partnership of Argentina,
670: Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America.
671:
672: \begin{thebibliography}{}
673: \bibitem[Adams \& Smith(1987)]{ada87} Adams, N. G., \& Smith, D. 1987, in IAU Symposium 120, Astrochemistry, ed. M. S. Vardya \& S. P. Tarafdar
674: (Dordrecht: Reidel), 1
675: \bibitem[Black \& Dalgarno(1977)]{bla77} Black, J. H., \& Dalgarno, A. 1977, \apjs, 34, 405
676: \bibitem[Black et al.(1978)]{bla78} Black, J. H., Hartquist, T. W., \& Dalgarno, A. 1978, \apj, 224, 448
677: \bibitem[Bohlin et al.(1978)]{boh78} Bohlin, R. C., Savage, B. D., \& Drake, J. F. 1978, \apj, 224, 132
678: \bibitem[Cardelli et al.(1996)]{car96} Cardelli, J. A., Meyer, D. M., Jura, M., \& Savage, B. D. 1996, \apj, 467, 334
679: \bibitem[Chaffee \& White(1982)]{cha82} Chaffee, F. H., Jr., \& White, R. E. 1982, \apjs, 50, 169
680: \bibitem[Cravens \& Dalgarno(1978)]{cra78} Cravens, T. E., \& Dalgarno, A. 1978, \apj, 219, 750
681: \bibitem[Crutcher \& Chu(1982)]{cru82} Crutcher, R. M., \& Chu, Y. H. 1982, in Regions of Recent Star Formation,
682: ed. R. S. Roger \& P. E. Dewdney (Dordrecht: Reidel), 53
683: \bibitem[Dalgarno et al.(1999)]{dal99} Dalgarno, A., Yan, M., \& Liu, W. 1999, \apjs, 125, 237
684: \bibitem[Dalgarno(2006)]{dal06} Dalgarno, A. 2006, PNAS, 103, 12269
685: \bibitem[Federman \& Lambert(1992)]{fed92} Federman, S. R., \& Lambert, D. L. 1992, \aj, 104, 691
686: \bibitem[Federman et al.(1996)]{fed96} Federman, S. R., Weber, J., \& Lambert, D. L. 1996, \apj, 463, 181
687: \bibitem[Geballe et al.(1999)]{geb99} Geballe, T. R., McCall, B. J., Hinkle, K. H., \& Oka, T. 1999, \apj, 510, 251
688: \bibitem[Geballe \& Oka(1996)]{geb96} Geballe, T. R., \& Oka, T. 1996, \nat, 384, 334
689: \bibitem[Glassgold \& Langer(1974)]{gla74} Glassgold, A. E., \& Langer, W. D. 1974, \apj, 193, 73
690: \bibitem[Gredel \& M\"{u}nch(1986)]{gre86} Gredel, R., \& M\"{u}nch, G. 1986, \aap, 154, 336
691: \bibitem[Hartquist et al.(1978a)]{har78a} Hartquist, T. W., Black, J. H., \& Dalgarno, A. 1978a, \mnras, 185, 643
692: \bibitem[Hartquist et al.(1978b)]{har78b} Hartquist, T. W., Doyle, H. T., \& Dalgarno, A. 1978b, \aap, 68, 65
693: \bibitem[Hayakawa et al.(1961)]{hay61} Hayakawa, S., Nishimura, S., \& Takayanagi, T. 1961, PASJ, 13, 184
694: \bibitem[Hobbs et al.(2004)]{hob04} Hobbs, L. M., Thorburn, J. A., Oka, T., Barentine, J., Snow, T. P., \& York, D. G. 2004, \apj, 615, 947
695: \bibitem[Jura(1975)]{jur75} Jura, M. 1975, \apj, 197, 581
696: \bibitem[Jenkins et al.(1983)]{jen83} Jenkins, E. B., Jura, M., \& Loewenstein, M. 1983, \apj, 270, 88
697: \bibitem[Lamers et al.(1983)]{lam83} Lamers, H. J. G. L. M., de Groot, M., \& Cassatella, A. 1983, \aap, 128, 299
698: \bibitem[Le Petit et al.(2004)]{lep04} Le Petit, F., Roueff, E., \& Herbst, E. 2004, \aap, 417, 993
699: \bibitem[Lepp et al.(1988)]{lep88} Lepp, S., Dalgarno, A., van Dishoeck, E. F., \& Black, J. H. 1988, \apj, 329, 418
700: \bibitem[Liszt(2003)]{lis03} Liszt, H. 2003, \aap, 398, 621
701: \bibitem[Liszt(2006)]{lis06} Liszt, H. S. 2006, \aap, 452, 269
702: \bibitem[Liszt(2007)]{lis07} Liszt, H. S. 2007, \aap, 461, 205
703: \bibitem[McCall(2000)]{mcc00} McCall, B. J. 2000, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London A, 358, 2385
704: \bibitem[McCall(2001)]{mccth} McCall, B. J. 2001, Ph.D. thesis, Univ. Chicago
705: \bibitem[McCall et al.(1998)]{mcc98} McCall, B. J., Geballe, T. R., Hinkle, K. H., \& Oka, T. 1998, Science, 279, 1910
706: \bibitem[McCall et al.(1999)]{mcc99} McCall, B. J., Geballe, T. R., Hinkle, K. H., \& Oka, T. 1999, \apj, 522, 338
707: \bibitem[McCall \& Oka(2000)]{mcok00} McCall, B. J., \& Oka, T. 2000, \jcp, 113, 3104
708: \bibitem[McCall et al.(2002)]{mcc02} McCall, B. J., et al. 2002, \apj, 567, 391
709: \bibitem[McCall et al.(2003)]{mcc03} McCall, B. J., et al. 2003, \nat, 422, 500
710: \bibitem[McCall et al.(2004)]{mcc04} McCall, B. J., et al. 2004, \pra, 70, 052716
711: \bibitem[Mountain et al.(1990)]{mou90} Mountain, C. M., Robertson, D. J., Lee, T. J., \& Wade, R. 1990, Proc. SPIE, 1235, 25
712: \bibitem[Nath \& Biermann(1994)]{nat94} Nath, B. B., \& Biermann, P. L. 1994, \mnras, 267, 447
713: \bibitem[O'Donnell \& Watson(1974)]{odo74} O'Donnell, E. J., \& Watson, W. D. 1974, \apj, 191, 89
714: \bibitem[Oka \& Epp(2004)]{oka04} Oka, T., \& Epp, E. 2004, \apj, 613, 349
715: \bibitem[Padoan \& Scalo(2005)]{pad05} Padoan, P., \& Scalo, J. 2005, \apj, 624, L97
716: \bibitem[Pendleton et al.(1994)]{pen94} Pendleton, Y. J., Sandford, S. A., Allamandola, L. J., Tielens, A. G. G. M., \& Sellgren, K. 1994, \apj, 437, 683
717: \bibitem[Rachford et al.(2002)]{rac02} Rachford, B. L, et al. 2002, \apj, 577, 221
718: \bibitem[Rickard(1974)]{ric74} Rickard, J. J. 1974, \aap, 31, 47
719: \bibitem[Savage et al.(1977)]{sav77} Savage, B. D., Bohlin, R. C., Drake, J. F., \& Budich, W. 1977, \apj, 216, 291
720: \bibitem[Schulte(1958)]{sch58} Schulte, D. H. 1958, \apj, 128, 41
721: \bibitem[Shuping et al.(1999)]{shu99} Shuping, R. Y., Snow, T. P., Crutcher, R., \& Lutz, B. L. 1999, \apj, 520, 149
722: \bibitem[Skilling \& Strong(1976)]{ski76} Skilling, J., \& Strong, A. W. 1976, \aap, 53, 253
723: \bibitem[Smith \& Adams(1984)]{smi84} Smith, D., \& Adams, N. G. 1984, \apj, 284, L13
724: \bibitem[Snow \& McCall(2006)]{sno06} Snow, T. P., \& McCall, B. J. 2006, ARA\&A, 44, 367
725: \bibitem[Snow et al.(1977)]{sno77} Snow, T. P., Jr., York, D. G., \& Welty, D. E. 1977, \aj, 82, 113
726: \bibitem[Sonnentrucker et al.(2007)]{son07} Sonnentrucker, P., Welty, D. E., Thorburn, J. A., \& York, D. G. 2007, \apjs, 168, 58
727: \bibitem[Spitzer \& Tomasko(1968)]{spi68} Spitzer, L., Jr., \& Tomasko, M. G. 1968, \apj, 152, 971
728: \bibitem[Thorburn et al.(2003)]{tho03} Thorburn, J. A., et al. 2003, \apj, 584, 339
729: \bibitem[van Dishoeck \& Black(1986)]{van86} van Dishoeck, E. F., \& Black, J. H. 1986, \apjs, 62, 109
730: \bibitem[Webber(1998)]{web98} Webber, W. R. 1998, \apj, 506, 329
731: \bibitem[Wegner(1994)]{weg94} Wegner, W. 1994, \mnras, 270, 229
732: \bibitem[Welty \& Hobbs(2001)]{wel01} Welty, D. E., \& Hobbs, L. M. 2001, \apjs, 133, 345
733: \end{thebibliography}
734:
735: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%Figures%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
736:
737: \clearpage
738: \begin{figure}
739: \epsscale{.8}
740: \plotone{f1.eps}
741: \caption{Typical examples of spectra near the \hhh\ ortho-para doublet. The spectra in this and all other figures
742: have been offset in intensity for clarity.
743: The bottom spectrum is $\zeta$~Per from 2001 September 5.
744: The middle spectrum is the standard star
745: $\beta$~Per from the same date. The top spectrum is $\zeta$~Per ratioed with the standard star.
746: Two arrows show the expected
747: location of \hhh\ absorption which can barely be seen here due to the scaling. The vertical lines are at the rest
748: wavelengths of the \hhh\ lines.}
749: \label{fig1}
750: \end{figure}
751:
752: \clearpage
753: \begin{figure}
754: \epsscale{.8}
755: \plotone{f2.eps}
756: \caption{Spectra showing strong detections of the \hhh\ doublet near 36680~\AA .
757: All spectra have been Doppler shifted into the rest frame of the LSR.
758: Arrows show where the lines are expected due to previous gas velocity
759: measurements, which are given in Table \ref{tbl2}.}
760: \label{fig2}
761: \end{figure}
762:
763: \clearpage
764: \begin{figure}
765: \epsscale{.8}
766: \plotone{f3.eps}
767: \caption{Same as Figure 2 except showing more typical strength detections of \hhh.}
768: \label{fig3}
769: \end{figure}
770:
771: \clearpage
772: \begin{figure}
773: \epsscale{.8}
774: \plotone{f4.eps}
775: \caption{Same as Figure 2 except showing non-detections.}
776: \label{fig4}
777: \end{figure}
778:
779: \clearpage
780: \begin{figure}
781: \epsscale{.8}
782: \plotone{f5.eps}
783: \caption{Same as Figure 2 except showing non-detections.}
784: \label{fig5}
785: \end{figure}
786:
787:
788: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%Tables%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
789:
790: \clearpage
791: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccc}
792: \tablecaption{Observations \label{tbl1}}
793: \tablehead{
794: & & \colhead{Date(s) of} &
795: & \colhead{Integration Time} \\
796: \colhead{Object} & \colhead{HD number} & \colhead{Observation} &
797: \colhead{Standard} & \colhead{(sec)}
798: }
799:
800: \startdata
801: $\zeta$ Oph & 149757 & 2001 May 24 & $\beta$ Lib & 576\\
802: & & 2001 May 25 & $\beta$ Lib & 1344\\
803: HD 147889 & 147889 & 2001 May 24 & $\delta$ Sco & 5760\\
804: $\lambda$ Cep & 210839 & 2001 May 24 & $\alpha$ Lyr & 4320\\
805: HD 169454 & 169454 & 2001 May 25 & $\beta$ Lib & 4224\\
806: W40 IRS 1a & ... & 2001 May 25 & $\eta$ Oph & 1800\\
807: & & 2001 May 26 & $\delta$ Sco & 1800\\
808: $o$ Sco & 147084 & 2001 May 26 & $\alpha$ Lyr & 960\\
809: HD 168625 & 168625 & 2001 May 26 & $\eta$ Oph & 1440\\
810: HD 229059 & 229059 & 2001 May 27 & $\alpha$ Cyg & 1800\\
811: & & 2001 Sept 5 & $\alpha$ Cyg & 1800\\
812: BD -14 5037 & ... & 2001 May 28 & $\eta$ Oph & 2016\\
813: HD 20041 & 20041 & 2001 Sept 5 & $\beta$ Per & 1728\\
814: HD 21389 & 21389 & 2001 Sept 5 & $\beta$ Per & 1536\\
815: & & 2002 Dec 30 & $\delta$ Per & 1152\\
816: & & 2002 Dec 31 & $\beta$ Per & 1536\\
817: & & 2003 Jan 1 & $\eta$ Tau & 1152\\
818: $\zeta$ Per & 24398 & 2001 Sept 5 & $\beta$ Per & 2304\\
819: & & 2002 Dec 30 & $\beta$ Per & 1152\\
820: & & 2002 Dec 31 & $\beta$ Per & 1152\\
821: & & 2003 Jan 1 & $\delta$ Per & 1440\\
822: $o$ Per & 23180 & 2002 Dec 30 & $\beta$ Per & 2304\\
823: & & 2002 Dec 31 & $\beta$ Per & 1152\\
824: $\xi$ Per & 24912 & 2002 Dec 30 & $\beta$ Per & 1920\\
825: & & 2002 Dec 31 & $\beta$ Per & 1920\\
826: & & 2003 Jan 1 & $\delta$ Per & 1536\\
827: X Per & 24534 & 2002 Dec 31 & $\beta$ Per & 1920\\
828: & & 2004 Jan 22 & HD 17573 & 3600\\
829: & & 2005 Jan 5 & HD 17573 & 4320\\
830: & & 2005 Jan 6 & $\eta$ Aur & 2880\\
831: & & 2005 Mar 3 & $\eta$ Aur & 5040\\
832: & & 2005 Mar 4 & $\eta$ Aur & 5040\\
833: 62 Tau & 27778 & 2003 Jan 1 & $\beta$ Per & 2688\\
834: $\epsilon$ Per & 24760 & 2004 Jan 23 & $\eta$ Aur & 1800\\
835: & & 2005 Jan 5 & $\eta$ Aur & 1440\\
836: & & 2005 Jan 6 & $\eta$ Aur & 1440\\
837: 40 Per & 22951 & 2004 Jan 23 & HD 17573 & 3600\\
838: & & 2005 Jan 6 & $\eta$ Aur & 2880\\
839: Red Rectangle & 44179 & 2005 Jan 6 & $\kappa$ Ori & 720\\
840: HD 21483 & 21483 & 2005 Jan 25 & HD 17573 & 5760\\
841:
842: \enddata
843: %\tablecomments{}
844: \end{deluxetable}
845:
846: \clearpage
847: \begin{deluxetable}{lrcc}
848: \tablecaption{Previous Measurements of ISM Gas Velocities \label{tbl2}}
849: \tablehead{ & \colhead{$v_{\rm LSR}$} & & \\
850: \colhead{Object} & \colhead{(km s$^{-1}$)} & \colhead{Species} & \colhead{Reference}}
851:
852: \startdata
853: HD 20041 & -1.6 & K \textsc{i} & 1 \\
854: HD 21389 & -0.5 & CH & 1 \\
855: $\zeta$ Per & 6.9 & CH & 1 \\
856: X Per & 6.6 & CH & 1 \\
857: HD 169454 & 5.3 & CH & 1 \\
858: & 90 & Na \textsc{i} \& Ca \textsc{ii} & 2 \\
859: HD 229059 & 4.04 & K \textsc{i} & 3 \\
860: BD -14 5037 & 8.2 & C$_2$ & 4 \\
861: & 18.2 & C$_2$ & 4 \\
862: W40 IRS 1a & 8 & $^{13}$CO\tablenotemark{\dag} & 5 \\
863: HD 21483 & 10.3 & CH & 1 \\
864: 40 Per & 6.8 & K \textsc{i}& 3 \\
865: $o$ Per & 7.3 & CH & 1 \\
866: $\epsilon$ Per & 2.2 & K \textsc{i}& 6 \\
867: $\xi$ Per & 0.55 & K \textsc{i} & 6 \\
868: 62 Tau & 4.8 & CH & 1 \\
869: Red Rectangle & -0.8 & K \textsc{i}\tablenotemark{\dag} \& O \textsc{i}\tablenotemark{\dag}& 7 \\
870: $o$ Sco & 2.29 & K \textsc{i} & 6 \\
871: HD 147889 & 2.7 & K \textsc{i} & 1 \\
872: $\zeta$ Oph & -1.0 & CH & 1 \\
873: HD 168625 & 6 & Ca \textsc{ii} & 8 \\
874: $\lambda$ Cep & -1.7 & CH & 1 \\
875: \enddata
876: \tablerefs{(1) Welty (private communication); (2) \citet{fed92}; (3) \citet{cha82}; (4) \citet{gre86};
877: (5) \citet{cru82}; (6) \citet{wel01}; (7) \citet{hob04}; (8) \citet{ric74}}
878: \tablecomments{$v_{\rm LSR}$ is the velocity of the interstellar gas in the local standard of rest frame. Unless noted,
879: all lines were measured in absorption.}
880: \tablenotetext{\dag}{measured in emission}
881: \end{deluxetable}
882:
883:
884: \clearpage
885: \begin{deluxetable}{llcccccc}
886: \tablecaption{Absorption Line Parameters \label{tbl3}}
887: \tablehead{
888: & & \colhead{$v_{\rm LSR}$} & \colhead{FWHM} & \colhead{$W_{\lambda}$} & \colhead{$\sigma(W_{\lambda})$} &
889: \colhead{$N$(H$_3^+)$} & \colhead{$\sigma(N)$} \\
890: \colhead{Object} & \colhead{Transition} & \colhead{(km s$^{-1}$)} & \colhead{(km s$^{-1}$)} &
891: \colhead{(\AA)} & \colhead{(\AA)} & \colhead{($10^{14}$ cm$^{-2}$)} & \colhead{($10^{14}$ cm$^{-2}$)}
892: }
893:
894: \startdata
895: HD 20041 & $R(1,1)^u$ & -1.4 & 8.4 & 0.017 & 0.004 & 0.70 & 0.15 \\
896: & $R(1,0)$ & -1.5 & 9.6 & 0.036 & 0.004 & 0.91 & 0.10 \\
897: HD 21389 & $R(1,1)^u$ & -1.9 & 11.9 & 0.009 & 0.002 & 0.39 & 0.07 \\
898: & $R(1,0)$ & -0.2 & 15.6 & 0.016 & 0.002 & 0.41 & 0.05 \\
899: $\zeta$ Per & $R(1,1)^u$ & 7.5 & 9.7 & 0.010 & 0.001 & 0.43 & 0.05 \\
900: & $R(1,0)$ & 6.8 & 8.8 & 0.010 & 0.001 & 0.26 & 0.03 \\
901: X Per & $R(1,1)^u$ & 8.3 & 11.6 & 0.011 & 0.002 & 0.46 & 0.10 \\
902: & $R(1,0)$ & 5.7 & 9.6 & 0.012 & 0.002 & 0.31 & 0.06 \\
903: HD 169454 & $R(1,1)^u$ & 2.6 & 11.1 & 0.005 & 0.002 & 0.21 & 0.08 \\
904: & $R(1,0)$ & 2.1 & 10.8 & 0.014 & 0.002 & 0.35 & 0.05 \\
905: HD 229059 & $R(1,1)^u$ & 5.9 & 12.2 & 0.058 & 0.003 & 2.42 & 0.14 \\
906: & $R(1,0)$ & 4.4 & 12.4 & 0.059 & 0.003 & 1.48 & 0.09 \\
907: BD -14 5037 & $R(1,1)^u$ & 17.6 & 9.6 & 0.010 & 0.003 & 0.40 & 0.13 \\
908: & $R(1,0)$ & 18.6 & 10.4 & 0.009 & 0.003 & 0.23 & 0.08 \\
909: W40 IRS 1a & $R(1,1)^u$ & 7.5 & 10.8 & 0.051 & 0.008 & 2.12 & 0.33 \\
910: & $R(1,0)$ & 8.2 & 6.6 & 0.050 & 0.006 & 1.26 & 0.16 \\
911: HD 21483 & $R(1,1)^u$ & ... & 10 & $<$0.036 & ... & $<$1.53 & ... \\
912: & $R(1,0)$ & ... & 10 & $<$0.036 & ... & $<$0.93 & ... \\
913: 40 Per & $R(1,1)^u$ & ... & 10 & $<$0.015 & ... & $<$0.60 & ... \\
914: & $R(1,0)$ & ... & 10 & $<$0.015 & ... & $<$0.36 & ... \\
915: $o$ Per & $R(1,1)^u$ & ... & 10 & $<$0.009 & ... & $<$0.42 & ... \\
916: & $R(1,0)$ & ... & 10 & $<$0.009 & ... & $<$0.27 & ... \\
917: $\epsilon$ Per & $R(1,1)^u$ & ... & 10 & $<$0.009 & ... & $<$0.39 & ... \\
918: & $R(1,0)$ & ... & 10 & $<$0.009 & ... & $<$0.24 & ... \\
919: $\xi$ Per & $R(1,1)^u$ & ... & 10 & $<$0.009 & ... & $<$0.33 & ... \\
920: & $R(1,0)$ & ... & 10 & $<$0.009 & ... & $<$0.21 & ... \\
921: 62 Tau & $R(1,1)^u$ & ... & 10 & $<$0.045 & ... & $<$1.89 & ... \\
922: & $R(1,0)$ & ... & 10 & $<$0.045 & ... & $<$1.14 & ... \\
923: Red Rectangle & $R(1,1)^u$ & ... & 10 & $<$0.006 & ... & $<$0.21 & ... \\
924: & $R(1,0)$ & ... & 10 & $<$0.006 & ... & $<$0.15 & ... \\
925: $o$ Sco & $R(1,1)^u$ & ... & 10 & $<$0.009 & ... & $<$0.36 & ... \\
926: & $R(1,0)$ & ... & 10 & $<$0.009 & ... & $<$0.21 & ... \\
927: HD 147889 & $R(1,1)^u$ & ... & 10 & $<$0.009 & ... & $<$0.39 & ... \\
928: & $R(1,0)$ & ... & 10 & $<$0.009 & ... & $<$0.24 & ... \\
929: $\zeta$ Oph & $R(1,1)^u$ & ... & 10 & $<$0.003 & ... & $<$0.18 & ... \\
930: & $R(1,0)$ & ... & 10 & $<$0.003 & ... & $<$0.12 & ... \\
931: HD 168625 & $R(1,1)^u$ & ... & 10 & $<$0.012 & ... & $<$0.54 & ... \\
932: & $R(1,0)$ & ... & 10 & $<$0.012 & ... & $<$0.33 & ... \\
933: $\lambda$ Cep & $R(1,1)^u$ & ... & 10 & $<$0.012 & ... & $<$0.54 & ... \\
934: & $R(1,0)$ & ... & 10 & $<$0.012 & ... & $<$0.33 & ... \\
935: \enddata
936: \tablecomments{$v_{\rm LSR}$ is the observed line of sight velocity in the local standard of rest
937: frame. FWHM is the line full width at half maximum (for the purpose of
938: calculating column density upper limits, the FWHM is assumed to be 10 km s$^{-1}$ for all
939: spectra without absorption lines). $W_{\lambda}$ is the equivalent width of the line in \AA ngstr\"{o}ms.
940: $\sigma(W_{\lambda})$ is the one standard deviation uncertainty of the equivalent width.
941: Upper limits for the equivalent width were found by taking 3$\times\sigma(W_{\lambda})$.
942: $N$(H$_3^+)$ is the \hhh\ column density. $\sigma(N)$ is the one standard deviation uncertainty
943: of the \hhh\ column density. Upper limits for the column density were found by taking 3$\times\sigma(N)$.}
944:
945: \end{deluxetable}
946:
947:
948: \clearpage
949:
950: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccccccc}
951: \rotate
952: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
953: \tablecaption{Sightline Parameters \label{tbl4}}
954: \tablehead{
955: & \colhead{$N$(H$_3^+)_{tot}$} & \colhead{$\sigma(N)$} & \colhead{$T$(\hhh)} & \colhead{$E(B-V)$} &
956: \colhead{$N_{\rm H}$} & & \colhead{$n_{\rm H}$} & \colhead{$L$} & \colhead{$\zeta_p$} \\
957: \colhead{Object} & \colhead{($10^{14}$ cm$^{-2}$)} &
958: \colhead{($10^{14}$ cm$^{-2}$)} & \colhead{(K)} & \colhead{(mag)} & \colhead{($10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$)} &
959: \colhead{$f$} & \colhead{(cm$^{-3}$)} &
960: \colhead{(pc)} & \colhead{($10^{-16}$ s$^{-1}$)}
961: }
962:
963: \startdata
964: HD 20041 & 1.6 & 0.18 & 76\tablenotemark{c} & 0.72\tablenotemark{d} &
965: 4.18\tablenotemark{m} & 0.67\tablenotemark{q} & 250\tablenotemark{t} & 5.4 & 2.9 \\
966:
967: HD 21389 & 1.0 & 0.08 & 51 & 0.57\tablenotemark{d} &
968: 3.31\tablenotemark{m} & 0.67\tablenotemark{q} & 250\tablenotemark{t} & 4.3 & 1.8 \\
969:
970: $\zeta$ Per & 0.7 & 0.06 & 28 & 0.31\tablenotemark{d} &
971: 1.59\tablenotemark{n}\tablenotemark{o} & 0.60\tablenotemark{r} & 215\tablenotemark{u} & 2.4 & 3.2 \\
972:
973: X Per & 0.8 & 0.17 & 30 & 0.59\tablenotemark{d} &
974: 2.20\tablenotemark{n}\tablenotemark{p} & 0.76\tablenotemark{r} & 325\tablenotemark{u} & 2.2 & 3.1 \\
975:
976: HD 169454 & 0.6 & 0.09 & 180\tablenotemark{c} & 1.12\tablenotemark{d} &
977: 6.50\tablenotemark{m} & 0.50\tablenotemark{s} & 265\tablenotemark{u} & 7.9 & 0.9 \\
978:
979: HD 229059 & 3.9 & 0.16 & 28 & 1.71\tablenotemark{d} &
980: 9.92\tablenotemark{m} & 0.67\tablenotemark{q} & 250\tablenotemark{t} & 13 & 2.9 \\
981:
982: BD -14 5037 & 0.6 & 0.16 & 26 & 1.55\tablenotemark{e} &
983: 8.99\tablenotemark{m} & 0.67\tablenotemark{q} & 250\tablenotemark{t} & 12 & 0.5 \\
984:
985: W40 IRS 1a & 3.4 & 0.37 & 27 & 2.90\tablenotemark{f} &
986: 16.8\tablenotemark{m} & 0.67\tablenotemark{q} & 250\tablenotemark{t} & 22 & 1.5 \\
987:
988: WR 104 & 2.3\tablenotemark{a} & 0.25\tablenotemark{a} & 38\tablenotemark{a} & 2.10\tablenotemark{g} &
989: 12.2\tablenotemark{m} & 0.67\tablenotemark{q} & 250\tablenotemark{t} & 16 & 1.4 \\
990:
991: WR 118 & 6.5\tablenotemark{a} & 0.18\tablenotemark{a} & 40\tablenotemark{a} & 4.13\tablenotemark{g} &
992: 24.0\tablenotemark{m} & 0.67\tablenotemark{q} & 250\tablenotemark{t} & 31 & 2.0 \\
993:
994: WR 121 & 2.2\tablenotemark{a} & 0.28\tablenotemark{a} & ...& 1.68\tablenotemark{g} &
995: 9.74\tablenotemark{m} & 0.67\tablenotemark{q} & 250\tablenotemark{t} & 13 & 1.7 \\
996:
997: Cyg OB2 12 & 3.8\tablenotemark{a} & 0.36\tablenotemark{b} & 27\tablenotemark{a} & 3.35\tablenotemark{h} &
998: 19.4\tablenotemark{m} & 0.67\tablenotemark{q} & 300\tablenotemark{v} & 21 & 1.8 \\
999:
1000: Cyg OB2 5 & 2.6\tablenotemark{a} & 0.19\tablenotemark{a} & 47\tablenotemark{a} & 1.99\tablenotemark{h} &
1001: 11.5\tablenotemark{m} & 0.67\tablenotemark{q} & 225\tablenotemark{v} & 17 & 1.5 \\
1002:
1003: HD 183143 & 2.3\tablenotemark{a} & 0.08\tablenotemark{a} & 31\tablenotemark{a} & 1.28\tablenotemark{i} &
1004: 7.42\tablenotemark{m} & 0.67\tablenotemark{q} & 250\tablenotemark{t} & 9.6 & 2.3 \\
1005:
1006: %non-detections
1007:
1008: HD 21483 & $<$2.2 & ... & ... & 0.56\tablenotemark{d} &
1009: 3.25\tablenotemark{m} & 0.67\tablenotemark{q} & 250\tablenotemark{t} & 4.2 & $<$5.7 \\
1010:
1011: 40 Per & $<$0.9 & ... & ... & 0.24\tablenotemark{j} &
1012: 1.67\tablenotemark{n}\tablenotemark{o} & 0.35\tablenotemark{r} & 80\tablenotemark{w} & 6.7 & $<$2.6 \\
1013:
1014: $o$ Per & $<$0.6 & ... & ... & 0.31\tablenotemark{d} &
1015: 1.52\tablenotemark{n}\tablenotemark{o} & 0.54\tablenotemark{r} & 265\tablenotemark{u} & 1.9 & $<$5.0 \\
1016:
1017: $\epsilon$ Per & $<$0.5 & ... & ... & 0.09\tablenotemark{j} &
1018: 0.35\tablenotemark{n}\tablenotemark{o} & 0.19\tablenotemark{r} & 15\tablenotemark{x} & 7.5 & $<$2.4 \\
1019:
1020: $\xi$ Per & $<$0.5 & ... & ... & 0.33\tablenotemark{d} &
1021: 1.82\tablenotemark{n}\tablenotemark{o} & 0.38\tablenotemark{r} & 300\tablenotemark{x} & 2.0 & $<$4.5 \\
1022:
1023: 62 Tau & $<$2.7 & ... & ... & 0.37\tablenotemark{d} &
1024: 2.19\tablenotemark{n}\tablenotemark{p} & 0.56\tablenotemark{r} & 280\tablenotemark{u} & 2.5 & $<$14 \\
1025:
1026: %Red Rectangle & $<$0.3 & ... & ... & 0.42\tablenotemark{e} &
1027: %2.44\tablenotemark{m} & 0.67\tablenotemark{q} & 250\tablenotemark{t} & 3.1 & $<$1.1 \\
1028:
1029: $o$ Sco & $<$0.5 & ... & ... & 0.73\tablenotemark{e} &
1030: 4.23\tablenotemark{m} & 0.67\tablenotemark{q} & 225\tablenotemark{v} & 6.1 & $<$0.9 \\
1031:
1032: HD 147889 & $<$0.6 & ... & ... & 1.07\tablenotemark{d} &
1033: 6.21\tablenotemark{m} & 0.67\tablenotemark{q} & 525\tablenotemark{v} & 3.8 & $<$1.6 \\
1034:
1035: $\zeta$ Oph & $<$0.3 & ... & ... & 0.32\tablenotemark{d} &
1036: 1.40\tablenotemark{n}\tablenotemark{o} & 0.65\tablenotemark{r} & 215\tablenotemark{u} & 2.1 & $<$1.5 \\
1037:
1038: HD 168625 & $<$0.8 & ... & ... & 1.48\tablenotemark{e} &
1039: 8.58\tablenotemark{m} & 0.67\tablenotemark{q} & 250\tablenotemark{t} & 11 & $<$0.8 \\
1040:
1041: $\lambda$ Cep & $<$0.8 & ... & ... & 0.57\tablenotemark{d} &
1042: 2.80\tablenotemark{n}\tablenotemark{p} & 0.49\tablenotemark{r} & 115\tablenotemark{u} & 7.8 & $<$1.3 \\
1043:
1044: HD 168607 & $<$0.6\tablenotemark{a} & ... & ... & 1.61\tablenotemark{i} &
1045: 9.34\tablenotemark{m} & 0.67\tablenotemark{q} & 250\tablenotemark{t} & 12 & $<$0.5 \\
1046:
1047: HD 194279 & $<$1.2\tablenotemark{a} & ... & ... & 1.22\tablenotemark{i} &
1048: 7.08\tablenotemark{m} & 0.67\tablenotemark{q} & 250\tablenotemark{t} & 9.1 & $<$1.3 \\
1049:
1050: $\chi^2$ Ori & $<$0.7\tablenotemark{a} & ... & ... & 0.44\tablenotemark{k} &
1051: 2.55\tablenotemark{m} & 0.67\tablenotemark{q} & 250\tablenotemark{t} & 3.3 & $<$2.1 \\
1052:
1053: P Cyg & $<$0.6\tablenotemark{a} & ... & ... & 0.63\tablenotemark{l} &
1054: 3.65\tablenotemark{m} & 0.67\tablenotemark{q} & 250\tablenotemark{t} & 4.7 & $<$1.2 \\
1055: \enddata
1056:
1057: \tablecomments{$N$(H$_3^+)_{tot}$ is total H$_3^+$ column density. $\sigma(N)$ is one
1058: standard deviation uncertainty of the total column density. Upper limits for the column density were found by taking
1059: 3$\times\sigma(N)$.
1060: $T$(\hhh) is the excitation temperature of \hhh\ as determined from the column densities of the (1,0) and (1,1)
1061: states. $E(B-V)$ is the color excess.
1062: $N_{\rm H}$ is the column density of hydrogen nuclei. $f$ is the molecular hydrogen fraction.
1063: $n_{\rm H}$ is the number density of hydrogen nuclei. $L$ is the cloud path length assuming a uniform
1064: distribution of gas. $\zeta_p$ is the primary cosmic-ray ionization rate.
1065: Upper limits on $\zeta_p$ were calculated using 3$\times\sigma(N)$.}
1066:
1067: \tablenotetext{a}{from \citet{mcc02}}
1068: \tablenotetext{b}{from \citet{mcc98}}
1069: \tablenotetext{c}{these high temperatures are most likely caused by inaccurate measurements of the (1,1) state column density
1070: due to atmospheric interference}
1071: \tablenotetext{d}{from \citet{tho03}}
1072: \tablenotetext{e}{derived from method used in \citet{tho03}}
1073: \tablenotetext{f}{derived from \citet{shu99} assuming $R_V = A_V/E(B-V) = 3.1$}
1074: \tablenotetext{g}{derived from \citet{pen94} assuming $R_V = A_V/E(B-V) = 3.1$}
1075: \tablenotetext{h}{from \citet{sch58}}
1076: \tablenotetext{i}{from \citet{sno77}}
1077: \tablenotetext{j}{from \citet{sav77}}
1078: \tablenotetext{k}{derived from intrinsic color of \citet{weg94}}
1079: \tablenotetext{l}{from \citet{lam83}}
1080: \tablenotetext{m}{calculated from $N_{\rm H}\approx E(B-V)\times5.8\times10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$ mag$^{-1}$ in \citet{boh78}}
1081: \tablenotetext{n}{calculated from observed H and H$_2$ column densities}
1082: \tablenotetext{o}{from B. Rachford (private communication)}
1083: \tablenotetext{p}{from \citet{rac02}}
1084: \tablenotetext{q}{we adopt $f = 0.67$ for sightlines without measured column densities}
1085: \tablenotetext{r}{H$_2$ fraction derived from same sources as column densities}
1086: \tablenotetext{s}{$f = 0.5$ assumed by \citet{son07} when calculating $n_{\rm H}$}
1087: \tablenotetext{t}{adopted number density}
1088: \tablenotetext{u}{from \citet{son07}}
1089: \tablenotetext{v}{from $n$(H + H$_2$) in \citet{son07} assuming $f=0.67$}
1090: \tablenotetext{w}{derived from pressure in \citet{jen83}}
1091: \tablenotetext{x}{from \citet{jur75}}
1092:
1093:
1094: \end{deluxetable}
1095:
1096:
1097: \clearpage
1098: \begin{deluxetable}{cccccc}
1099: \tablecaption{Primary Cosmic-ray Ionization Rate, $\zeta_p$ ($10^{-16}$ s$^{-1}$), for Select Sightlines
1100: \label{tbl5}}
1101: \tablehead{
1102: \colhead{reference} & \colhead{$\zeta$ Per} & \colhead{$o$ Per} & \colhead{$\epsilon$ Per} &
1103: \colhead{$\xi$ Per} & \colhead{$\zeta$ Oph}}
1104: \startdata
1105: 1 & 3.2 & $<$5.0 & $<$2.4 & $<$4.5 & $<$1.5 \\
1106: 2 & 0.22 & 2.50 & 0.01 & 0.06 & 0.17 \\
1107: 3 & 0.17 & 1.30 & ... & $\leq$0.26 & ... \\
1108: 4 & 1-2 & $\geq$8 & ... & ... & $\geq$4 \\
1109: 5 & 5.2 & ... & ... & ... & ... \\
1110: 6 & 2.5 & ... & ... & ... & ... \\
1111: \enddata
1112: \tablecomments{The upper limits from this paper are calculated using the 3$\sigma$ uncertainty
1113: in the \hhh\ column density. The value from \citet{mcc03} is found by using the conversion
1114: factor given in equation (\ref{eq10}).}
1115: \tablerefs{(1) this paper; (2) \citet{har78b}; (3) \citet{fed96}; (4) \citet{van86};
1116: (5) \citet{mcc03}; (6) \citet{lep04}}
1117: \end{deluxetable}
1118:
1119:
1120: \end{document}
1121: