1: \documentclass{aa}

2: \usepackage{natbib}

3: \usepackage{xspace}

4: \usepackage{amssymb}

5: \usepackage{amsmath}

6: \usepackage{graphicx}

7: \def\cdrev#1{{{#1}}}

8: \def\revised#1{{{#1}}}

9: %

10: \def\astroncite#1#2{#2}

11: \def\aap{A\& A}

12: \def\pasp{Proc.Astr.Soc.Pacific}

13: \def\araa{AnnRevA\& A}

14: \def\mnras{MNRAS}

15: \def\nat{Nature}

16: \def\apj{ApJ}

17: \def\aj{AJ}

18: \def\apjl{ApJL}

19: \def\apjs{ApJS}

20: \def\jqsrt{JQSRT}

21: \def\max{\mathrm{max}}

22: \def\erg{\hbox{erg}}

23: \def\sec{\hbox{s}}

24: \def\Hz{\hbox{Hz}}

25: \def\gram{\hbox{g}}

26: \def\cm{\hbox{cm}}

27: \def\km{\hbox{km}}

28: \def\kel{\hbox{K}}

29: \def\KeV{\hbox{KeV}}

30: \def\MeV{\hbox{MeV}}

31: \def\eV{\hbox{eV}}

32: \def\yr{\hbox{yr}}

33: \def\AU{\hbox{AU}}

34: \def\ster{\hbox{ster}}

35: \def\in{\mathrm{in}}

36: \def\out{\mathrm{out}}

37: \def\eff{\mathrm{eff}}

38: \def\rad{\mathrm{rad}}

39: \def\vrt{\mathrm{vert}}

40: \def\LI{LI}

41: \def\ALI{ALI}

42: \def\VEF{VEF}

43: \def\EAMO{MEMO}

44: \def\SED{SED}

45: \def\vert{\mathrm{vert}}

46: \def\modelflare{1}

47: \def\modelshade{2}

48: \def\modelthin{3}

49: \def\modeloutershade{4}

50: \def\comma{\,,}

51: \def\fullstop{\,.}

52: \def\tfric{\ensuremath{\tau_\mathrm{fric}}\xspace}

53: \def\teddy{\ensuremath{\tau_\mathrm{edd}}\xspace}

54: \def\veddy{\ensuremath{v_\mathrm{edd}}\xspace}

55: \def\leddy{\ensuremath{l_\mathrm{edd}}\xspace}

56: \def\ffric{\ensuremath{F_\mathrm{fric}}\xspace}

57: \def\vset{\ensuremath{v_\mathrm{sett}}\xspace}

58: \def\tset{\ensuremath{\tau_\mathrm{sett}}\xspace}

59: \def\tdif{\ensuremath{\tau_\mathrm{diff}}\xspace}

60: \def\fgrav{\ensuremath{F_\mathrm{grav}}\xspace}

61: \def\zstir{\ensuremath{z_{\mathrm{sett}}}\xspace}

62: \def\rturn{\ensuremath{R_{\mathrm{turn}}}\xspace}

63: \def\cs{\ensuremath{c_\mathrm{s}}\xspace}

64: \def\sigcoll{\ensuremath{\sigma}\xspace}

65: \def\Tgas{\ensuremath{T_\mathrm{gas}}\xspace}

66: %\def\rhogas{\ensuremath{\rho_\mathrm{gas}}\xspace}

67: \def\rhogas{\ensuremath{\rho}\xspace}

68: \def\rhodust{\ensuremath{\rho_\mathrm{d}}\xspace}

69: \def\mugas{\ensuremath{\mu_\mathrm{gas}}\xspace}

70: \def\um{\ensuremath{\mu\mathrm{m}}\xspace}

71: \def\mp{\ensuremath{m_\mathrm{p}}\xspace}

72: \def\Hp{\ensuremath{H_\mathrm{p}}\xspace}

73: \def\Omegak{\ensuremath{\Omega_\mathrm{K}}\xspace}

74: \def\Mstar{\ensuremath{M_\star}\xspace}

75: \def\Sc{\ensuremath{\mathrm{Sc}}\xspace}

76: \def\St{\ensuremath{\mathrm{St}}\xspace}

77: \def\Pt{\ensuremath{\mathrm{Pt}}\xspace}

78: \def\sermrn{\ensuremath{a_\mathrm{MRN}}\xspace}

79: \def\amin{\ensuremath{a_\mathrm{min}}\xspace}

80: \def\amax{\ensuremath{a_\mathrm{max}}\xspace}

81: %

82: \begin{document}

83: %\thesaurus{02.01.2,08.03.4,08.06.2,08.16.5,13.09.6}

84: %\title{Dust settling in protoplanetary disks}

85: \title{Size-sorting dust grains in the surface layers of protoplanetary disks}

86: \titlerunning{Size-sorting dust grains in protoplanetary disks}

87: \authorrunning{Dullemond \& Dominik} 

88: \author{C.P.~Dullemond \& C.~Dominik}

89: \institute{Max Planck Institut f\"ur Astronomie, K\"onigstuhl 17, 69117

90: Heidelberg, Germany \and Sterrenkundig Instituut `Anton Pannekoek',

91: Kruislaan 403, NL-1098 SJ Amsterdam, The Netherlands; e--mail:

92: dominik@science.uva.nl}

93: \date{DRAFT, \today}

94: 

95: \abstract{

96: %

97: {\em Context:} The shape of dust emission features measured from

98: protoplanetary disks contains information about the typical size of

99: the dust particles residing in these disks. A flattened 10 $\mu$m

100: silicate feature is often interpreted as proof that grain growth

101: has taken place, while a pointy feature is taken as evidence for the

102: pristine nature of the dust.

103: %

104: \\

105: %

106: {\em Aims:} We wish to investigate what the effect of dust sedimentation

107: is on the observed 10 $\mu$m feature and how this may affect the

108: interpretation of the observations.

109: %

110: \\

111: %

112: {\em Methods:} Using a combination of modeling tools, we simulated the

113: sedimentation of a dust grain size distribution in an axisymmetric 2-D model

114: of a turbulent protoplanetary disk, and we used a radiative transfer program

115: to compute the resulting spectra.

116: %

117: \\

118: %

119: {\em Results:} We find that the sedimentation can turn a flat feature into a

120: pointy one, but only to a limited degree and for a very limited set of 

121: particle size distributions. If the distribution is too strongly dominated

122: by small grains, then the feature is pointy even before sedimentation. If the

123: distribution is too strongly dominated by big grains, the sedimentation will

124: not be enough to cause the feature to be pointy. Only if we have a bimodal

125: size distribution, i.e.~a very small grain population and a bigger grain

126: population, do we find that the transformation from a flat to a pointy feature

127: upon dust sedimentation is strong. However, our model shows that, if

128: sedimentation is the sole reason for the variety of silicate feature

129: strengths observed in protoplanetary disks, then we would expect to find

130: a correlation such that disks with weak mid- to far-infrared excess have

131: a stronger 10 $\mu$m silicate feature than disks with a strong mid- to

132: far-infrared excess. If this is contrary to what is observed, then this would

133: indicate that sedimentation cannot be the main reason for the variety of

134: 10 $\mu$m silicate features observed in protoplanetary disks.

135: }

136: 

137: \maketitle

138: 

139: 

140: 

141: \begin{keywords}

142: accretion, accretion disks -- circumstellar matter 

143: -- stars: formation, pre-main-sequence -- infrared: stars 

144: \end{keywords}

145: 

146: \section{Introduction}

147: The protoplanetary disks surrounding Brown Dwarfs, T Tauri stars, and Herbig

148: Ae/Be stars have displayed a rich variety of dust emission features in their

149: infrared spectra. These features have been studied in great detail with the

150: Infrared Space Observatory (ISO; e.g.~Meeus et

151: al.~\citeyear{meeuswatersbouw:2001}; Bouwman \citeyear{bouwmanmeeus:2001}),

152: with ground-based instruments (van Boekel et

153: al.~\citeyear{vanboekelwaters:2003}; Honda et

154: al.~\citeyear{hondakataza:2003}) and with the Spitzer Space Telescope

155: (e.g.~Apai et al.~\citeyear{apaiscience:2005}; Kessler-Silacci et

156: al.~\citeyear{kessleraugereau:2006}; Furlan et

157: al.~\citeyear{furlanhartmann:2006}). While the wavelength and width of these

158: dust emission features reveals the composition of the dust grains and

159: whether they have undergone thermal processing or not, the shape and

160: strength of the features betrays the dominant size of the emitting

161: grains. Infrared spectroscopy is therefore a powerful tool for studying the

162: onset of grain growth, which is believed to be the very initial step toward

163: planet formation.

164: 

165: A drawback of this kind of analysis is that it only probes the very

166: tenuous `superheated' surface layers of the disk. This layer, which is

167: produced by the irradiation of the disk by the central star (Calvet et

168: al.~\citeyear{calvetpatino:1991}; Chiang \& Goldreich

169: \citeyear{chianggold:1997}), is very optically thin and has a

170: much higher temperature than the disk

171: interior. For these reasons the dust in this layer typically produce

172: strong emission features. Although this surface layer contains only a

173: minuscule part of the mass of the disk, it is responsible for about

174: half of the infrared luminosity of the disk (Chiang \& Goldreich

175: \citeyear{chianggold:1997}) and entirely dominates the

176:   generation of dust emission features.  This raises the concern about how

177: representative this layer is for the entire disk, \cdrev{and whether

178:   changes to dust properties observed in this layer are in any way

179:   related to changes deeper in the disk, where most of the mass

180:   resides and important processes such as planet formation take

181:   place.} Of particular concern is that dust tends to

182: sediment toward the midplane until an equilibrium between

183: sedimentation and vertical turbulent mixing is established (Dubrulle

184: et al.~\citeyear{dubmorster:1995}).  Large grains have a lower

185: surface-to-mass ratio and are therefore less prone to friction with

186: the gas than small grains. They therefore settle more deeply into the

187: disk interior before an equilibrium between sedimentation and

188: turbulent mixing is established. Small grains, however, stay afloat

189: much higher up in the photosphere of the disk, and since they dominate

190: the opacity anyway, they maintain the photospheric disk height at a

191: higher level. The bigger grains therefore settle out of the

192: photosphere, into the deep optically thick regions of the disk. They

193: are therefore filtered out of sight.

194: 

195: The question therefore arises: Could it be that the dust in this surface

196: layer is very {\em atypical} compared to the bulk of the disk deeper in the

197: optically thick parts of the disk?  If this is the case, what will we learn

198: from studying the infrared spectra from these disks? This paper is not the

199: first to raise this question. It has also been noted by e.g.\ van Boekel et

200: al.~(\citeyear{vanboekelwaters:2003}), and Sicilia-Aguilar et

201: al.~(\citeyear{sicilia:2007}) have invoked the potential effect of big

202: grains sinking out of the surface layer in their analysis of Spitzer spectra

203: of a sample of pre-main-sequence stars. Kessler-Silacci et

204: al.~(\citeyear{kessleraugereau:2006}) speculate that, by looking at

205: different wavelength ranges, one looks deeper into the disk toward regions

206: of larger grains. However, no quantitive study of this problem has been

207: presented yet. A related problem has, however, been studied recently by

208: Dullemond et al.~(\citeyear{dullemond:2007}). That paper showed that dust

209: sedimentation can enhance the infrared features from polycyclic aromatic

210: hydrocarbons (PAHs) in the disk, because the sedimentation causes the

211: thermal dust grains to sink below the photosphere held up by the PAHs.

212: 

213: In the present paper we wish to study the effect of sedimentation on the

214: shape of the 10 $\mu$m feature of silicate dust. This solid state infrared

215: emission feature, seen in the majority of protoplanetary disks, has 

216: often been used as a probe of grain size (e.g.~van Boekel et

217: al.~\citeyear{vboekelmin:2005}; Schegerer et

218: al.~\citeyear{schegerer:2006}). A strong and pointy 10 $\mu$m feature is

219: typical of grains smaller than about 1 $\mu$m in radius, while a weak and

220: flattened feature indicates the presence of grains between 2 $\mu$m and

221: 4$\mu$m, clearly larger than the average grain size in the interstellar

222: medium. Van Boekel et al.~(\citeyear{vanboekelwaters:2003}) showed that not

223: only are such variations in feature shape and strength observed in

224: protoplanetary disks, but indeed also the correlation between shape and

225: strength expected from the laboratory measurements is observed. We are aware

226: that the interpretation of the feature shape in terms of grain size is still

227: under debate, as porosity and fractal structure of the aggregates may

228: influence the absorption/emission cross section (Voshchinnikov et

229: al.~\citeyear{voshch:2006}; Min et al.~\citeyear{minhove:2005}). Moreover,

230: Juhasz et al.~(A\&A submitted) has shown that high signal-to-noise is needed

231: to interpret these features in the first place. But the fact that

232: observations appear to confirm the predicted trend gives some hope that the

233: method of interpretation of these features is reasonable.

234: 

235: \cdrev{Many attempts have been made to link the shape and strength of the 10

236:   $\mu$m feature to the evolution of the disk as a whole.  But not even the

237:   direction of this trend is clear.  Does the a flat, broad feature indicate

238:   a more developed disk by showing that larger grains have been produced in

239:   the disk?  This is the most common interpretation in the literature, and

240:   it keeps the assumption alive that growth from submicron grains to

241:   micron-sized grains is a process that happens slowly in the course of a

242:   million years.  However, such a trivial, direct connection seems rather

243:   unlikely, given the speed at which coagulation can proceed and produce

244:   large dust grains (Dullemond \& Dominik \citeyear{duldom:2005}).  In view

245:   of dust settling, the exact opposite relation with the developmental state

246:   of the disk is possible as well.  Assuming a steady-state size

247:   distribution and an equilibrium state between settling and turbulent

248:   mixing, the amount of large grains still present in the surface layer can

249:   be a simple effect of the strength of turbulent vertical mixing in the

250:   disk.  As turbulence and gas densities die down toward the end of the disk

251:   evolution, large grains would tend to disappear from the observer's view

252:   and result in pointy features for {\em evolved} disks.  For interpreting this

253:   type of spectroscopy and linking it to the evolutionary state of a disk,

254:   it is vital to understand if simple settling can indeed filter out large

255:   grains efficiently.  To establish or disprove this possibility is the core

256:   purpose of this paper.}

257: 

258: To study the effect of sedimentation on the 10 $\mu$m silicate feature shape,

259: we used the same setup as in the above mentioned paper on PAHs (Dullemond et

260: al.~\citeyear{dullemond:2007}). We set up a disk structure in the same way

261: as described in Dullemond \& Dominik (\citeyear{duldomsett:2004}). We then

262: assumed some grain size distribution throughout the disk and solve the

263: time-dependent 1-D vertical dust sedimentation-mixing equations at each

264: radial grid point for each grain size. Finally we used the Monte Carlo

265: continuum radiative transfer code {\tt RADMC} to produce the infrared

266: spectra, focusing on the region between 6 $\mu$m and 15 $\mu$m. We then

267: analyzed these results and figured out if dust sedimentation can modify the

268: feature shape. In particular we investigated if sedimentation can turn a

269: flat feature indicative of large grains into a pointy feature indicative of

270: small grains.

271: 

272: The structure of this paper is as follows. In Section \ref{sec-opacities} we

273: discuss the opacities we use and how we construct grain size distributions.

274: We then discuss the model in Section \ref{sec-model} and the results in

275: Section \ref{sec-results}. Finally we conclude in Section

276: \ref{sec-conclusion}.

277: 

278: 

279: \section{Opacities and grain size distributions}

280: \label{sec-opacities}

281: %

282: The results of our analysis may depend on the precise details of the

283: opacities and grain size distributions used. Therefore we discuss them here

284: in some detail. We used $n$ and $k$ optical constants from the Jena database

285: for Mg Fe SiO$_4$. We produced the absorption cross-section using a Mie

286: calculation and a specific weight of $\xi=$3.6 g/cm$^3$. We did not include

287: scattering in the radiative transfer calculations. With these Mie

288: calculations we obtained an opacity for a grain of a specific radius $a$. 

289: 

290: To model a grain size distribution we must choose a discrete set of grain radii

291: between the minimum radius $a_{\mathrm{min}}$ and the maximum radius

292: $a_{\mathrm{max}}$ of the distribution.  Throughout this paper we

293: choose $a_{\mathrm{min}}=0.001\;\mu$m and $a_{\mathrm{max}}=3\;\mu$m.  In

294: our model we always choose the sampling points to be logarithmically divided

295: between these bounds, such that we have linear spacing in log$(a)$.

296: Figure \ref{fig-opacities} shows the opacities for a limited set of grain

297: sizes, just to show the shape change occurring when one goes from small

298: ($a\lesssim 0.3\mu$m) to big $a\gtrsim 2\mu$m grains. \revised{It should be

299:   noted that flat-topped (boxy) features can also be produced by certain

300:   mixtures of small crystalline silicate grains (e.g.\ Honda et al.\

301:   \citeyear{hondakataza:2003}). The flatness of the feature is then due to

302:   the summing of a number of narrow crystalline peaks lined up so that,

303:   taken together, they look like a broad flat-topped feature of an amorphous

304:   large grain.  High-resolution and -sensitivity measurements, however,

305:   would be able to distinguish these two scenarios by identifying the slight

306:   bumpy shape of the flat-topped feature in the crystalline silicate

307:   scenario, where the bumps are at the known locations of the peaks of 

308:   enstatite and forsterite.}

309: 

310: \begin{figure}

311: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{f1.eps}}

312: \caption{The absorption cross-section in cm$^2$/gram-of-dust in the

313: N-band range for the dust we use in our model for various spherical

314: grain radii. For grain radii smaller than 0.1 $\mu$m, the opacity does

315: not change much from the opacity of 0.1 $\mu$m grains in this wavelength

316: domain. 

317: \label{fig-opacities}}

318: \end{figure}

319: 

320: To obtain the total cross section per gram of dust we need to speficy the

321: grain size distribution function $f(a)$. We define $f(a)$ such that

322: \begin{equation}

323: \rho_{\mathrm{dust}}=\int_{a_{\mathrm{min}}}^{a_{\mathrm{max}}}

324: m(a) f(a) da

325: \end{equation}

326: is the total dust density in units of gram/cm$^3$. Here $m(a) = (4\pi/3)\xi

327: a^3$ with $\xi=$3.6 g/cm$^3$. Throughout this paper we take a powerlaw

328: distribution: $f(a)\propto a^p$. The case $p=-7/2$ represents the MRN

329: distribution (Mathis, Rumpl \& Nordsieck \citeyear{mrn:1977}).  In terms of

330: a size distribution in particle mass $\tilde f(m)\propto m^q$ such that

331: $\tilde f(m)dm=f(a)da$, one gets $q=(p-2)/3$, so that for the MRN

332: distribution we have $q=-11/6$. However, from now on we shall use the $f(a)$

333: formalism. If we sample this distribution function with $N$ discrete

334: $a$-values, then we can associate a dust density to each of these `bins':

335: \begin{equation}

336: \rho_{\mathrm{dust}}^{(i)}=m(a_i)a_if(a_i)\Delta\log(a)_i

337: \end{equation}

338: where $\Delta\log(a)_i$ is the width of each bin in $\log(a)$ which we

339: assume to be the same for all bins, except for the first and the last,

340: which are only half as wide to ensure that the distribution goes

341: exactly from $\log(a_{\mathrm{min}})$ to $\log(a_{\mathrm{max}})$. The total

342: radiative cross section $\alpha_\nu$ in units of $1/$cm is then

343: \begin{equation}

344: \alpha_\nu = \sum_{i=1,N} \rho_{\mathrm{dust}}^{(i)} \kappa_\nu^{(i)}\fullstop

345: \end{equation}

346: The total emissivity $j_\nu$ in units of

347: erg$\,$s$^{-1}$$\,$cm$^{-3}$$\,$Hz$^{-1}$$\,$ster$^{-1}$ is then

348: \begin{equation}

349: j_\nu = \sum_{i=1,N} \rho_{\mathrm{dust}}^{(i)} \kappa_\nu^{(i)}

350: B_\nu(T_i)

351: \end{equation}

352: where $T_i$ is the temperature of grains with size $a_i$. We allow the

353: grains of different sizes to obtain different temperatures, because we

354: assume that they are not mutually thermally coupled, nor do they have strong

355: thermal coupling with the gas.

356: 

357: Because each grain size can have a different temperature, the $\alpha_\nu$

358: is not really a correct representation of the expected output spectrum, because the

359: Planck functions with which the individual $\rho_{\mathrm{dust}}^{(i)}

360: \kappa_\nu^{(i)}$ are multiplied may be different for each $i$. The full

361: radiative transfer calculations described later in this paper will take care

362: of this. 

363: 

364: 

365: 

366: 

367: \section{Model}\label{sec-model}

368: We start our model with making a vertical structure calculation of a disk

369: around a Herbig Ae star with $T_{*}=10000$K, $R_{*}=2.5R_{\odot}$, $M_{*}

370: =2.5 M_{\odot}$. The disk has an inner radius of $0.7$ AU, an outer radius

371: of 100 AU, and a surface density distribution of

372: $\Sigma(R)=\Sigma_0(R/\mathrm{AU})^{-1}$ with $\Sigma_0=163$g/cm$^2$.  We

373: then use the procedures described in Dullemond \& Dominik

374: (\citeyear{duldomdisk:2004}) to create a self-consistent disk structure

375: that is in vertical hydrostatic equilibrium. This procedure involves

376: solving the radiative transfer equation in 2-D axisymmetry using a

377: multi-dimensional radiative transfer program, and iterating this with the

378: vertical hydrostatic equilibrium equation. This procedure then gives

379: $\rho_{\mathrm{gas}}(r,z)$, i.e.\ the gas density as a function of radius

380: and vertical height above the midplane. In this procedure we assume that the

381: gas and the dust are well-mixed and thermally coupled (i.e.\

382: $T_{\mathrm{gas}}=T_{\mathrm{dust}}$) and we assume that the dust consists

383: of small $0.1\mu$m size silicate grains. 

384: 

385: Once we have this gas density distribution we insert the real dust density

386: distribution that we wish to model, again with the same dust-to-gas ratio of

387: 1:100. We then use the time-dependent dust settling code described in detail

388: in Dullemond \& Dominik (\citeyear{duldomsett:2004}). This gives the density

389: $\rho_i(r,z,t)$ of each dust component $i$. For a bimodal distribution we

390: have only $i=1,2$, while for a continuous distribution we have $i=1\cdots

391: 20$, as we model the distribution with 20 bins. We take the time $t$ to

392: be 1 Myr, so that we are sure that the dust has settled in a settling-mixing

393: equilibrium.

394: 

395: 

396: 

397: \section{Results}\label{sec-results}

398: We do the above described experiment for three values of the turbulent

399: strength: $\alpha=10^{-2}$, $10^{-3}$, $10^{-4}$, and for four different

400: continuous size distributions $p=-2.5$, $-2.0$, $-1.0$, $0.5$. The results

401: are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig-result-spec-distr}. We find that settling can

402: make the feature more pointy, but not dramatically so.  This is better seen

403: in Fig.~\ref{fig-result-boekel}-left, where we plot the well-known

404: strength-shape diagram of van Boekel \& Min

405: (\citeyear{vboekelmin:2005}). This diagram shows the strength

406: of the feature over the continuum on the x-axis and the normalized ratio of

407: the fluxes at 11.3 and 9.8 $\mu$m on the y-axis. Small grains (pointy features) appear at

408: the lower right of the diagram, while big grains (flat features) appear at the

409: top right. It should be noted here, however, that crystallization of the

410: grains have an effect similar to grain growth by ending up in the top left of

411: the diagram, but we are not concerned here about crystallization now. What

412: we do expect is that if settling causes a flat feature to be pointy, the

413: same model for ever lower values of $\alpha$ would be seen as a movement

414: from top left to bottom right. In the figure these models are connected

415: by lines. One sees that the expected effect is only reasonably strong for 

416: $p=-1$ and $p=0.5$, but weak or absent for $p=-2.5$ and $p=-2$. 

417: 

418: \begin{figure*}

419: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{f2.eps}}

420: \caption{Model results for the continuous size distribution with smallest

421:   size 0.001 $\mu$m and the biggest size 3 $\mu$m. The four different panels

422:   are for four different values of the powerlaw index $p$ for the grain size.

423:   The four different lines in each

424:   panel are for no settling (top) and for settling-mixing equilibrium with

425:   three different levels of turbulence. 

426: \label{fig-result-spec-distr}}

427: \end{figure*}

428: 

429: 

430: Now we do the same for the bimodal size distribution, in which we have only

431: a small grain size (0.001 $\mu$m) and a big one ($3.0\mu$m).  Figure

432: \ref{fig-result-spec-bimodal} shows that the effect of settling is very

433: strong: a flat feature can now really be converted into a truly pointy

434: one. For $p=-2.8$, this happens quite suddenly between $\alpha=10^{-4}$ and

435: $\alpha=10^{-3}$, while for $p=-3.25$ this happens equally suddenly between

436: $\alpha=10^{-3}$ and $\alpha=10^{-2}$, and for $p=-3.5$ this happens for any

437: value of $\alpha$. This is also reflected in Fig.~\

438: \ref{fig-result-boekel}-right, where one can now clearly see the top-left

439: to bottom-right trend predicted when going from flat to

440: pointy. Interestingly, such a strong boosting of the small grain population

441: has also been seen in the models with PAHs (Dullemond et

442: al.~\citeyear{dullemond:2007}). So it appears that if we have a clearly

443: bimodal distribution, then the settling can boost the features of the small

444: grains (be they true grains or PAHs), but for a continuous distribution

445: this is not as easy.

446: 

447: 

448: \begin{figure*}

449: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{f3.eps}}

450: \caption{As Fig.~\ref{fig-result-spec-distr}. Model results for the bimodal

451:   size distribution with the small grain size 0.001 $\mu$m and the big grain

452:   size 3 $\mu$m.

453: \label{fig-result-spec-bimodal}}

454: \end{figure*}

455: 

456: \begin{figure*}

457: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{f4.eps}

458: \caption{The feature-strength versus shape diagram of van Boekel

459: \& Min (\citeyear{vboekelmin:2005}) for both the continuous

460: distribution of sizes (left) and the bimodal size distribution (right).

461: Models with the same size distribution are indicated by

462: lines. The different symbols are the different levels of turbulence.

463: \label{fig-result-boekel}}

464: \end{figure*}

465: 

466: 

467: In addition to the feature-boosting effect described here, dust

468: sedimentation is also known to reduce the mid- to far-infrared flux of a

469: disk (Miyake \& Nakagawa \citeyear{miyakenaka:1995}; Chiang et

470: al.~\citeyear{chiangjoung:2001}; Dullemond \& Dominik

471: \citeyear{duldomsett:2004}; D'Alessio et

472: al.~\citeyear{dalessiocalvet:2006}). To be more precise: the ratio of, say,

473: 30 $\mu$m flux over 13 $\mu$m flux will decrease for decreasing level of

474: turbulence (and hence increasing level of sedimentation). The reason for

475: this is that the disk becomes geometrically flatter as seen in the dust

476: continuum. The outer regions of the disk therefore capture less stellar

477: radiation and consequently produce weaker mid- to far-infrared

478: emission. Depending on the situation, it can even happen that the dust in

479: outer disk regions has sunk so deeply into the disk that it resides entirely

480: in the shadow cast by the inner disk regions (Dullemond \& Dominik

481: \citeyear{duldomsett:2004}). This suppresses the mid- to far-infrared flux

482: even more and also makes the disk nearly invisible in scattered light.  Now,

483: if sedimentation is responsible for the boosting of small-grain features in

484: some disks, then there should be a correlation between the feature

485: strength/shape and the mid- to far-infrared flux. In a recent paper, Bouwman

486: et al.~(\citeyear{bouwman:2008}) plot the flux ratio $F_{30\mu m}/F_{13\mu

487:   m}$ versus 10 $\mu$m feature-over-continuum for a small sample of T Tauri

488: stars. They find a correlation in which the disks with weak feature also

489: have a low $F_{30\mu m}/F_{13\mu m}$. They interpret this as the effect of

490: grain growth: as the grains grow, the 10 $\mu$m silicate feature becomes

491: weaker and flatter, and because the overall opacity of the disk goes down,

492: so does the mid- to far-infrared flux compared to the N-band flux. However,

493: in the scenario we study in this paper, in which different strengths of the

494: 10 $\mu$m feature are supposed to be due to different strength of

495: turbulence, we would expect the opposite correlation: 

496: for low turbulence the feature becomes stronger, while the $F_{30\mu

497:   m}/F_{13\mu m}$ becomes weaker. Indeed this is what comes out of our

498: models, as can be seen in Fig.~\ref{fig-feature-sedshape}: A stronger

499: feature correlates with a smaller $F_{30\mu m}/F_{13\mu m}$. For the grain

500: size distribution this trend is rather weak (but certainly not the opposite

501: trend), but the trend is clear for the bimodal size distribution. If the

502: feature strength - SED shape correlation found by Boumwan et al.\ is

503: confirmed on the basis of larger samples, then this would serve as clear

504: proof that sedimentation alone cannot be held responsible for the strength

505: or weakness of the 10 $\mu$m feature.

506: 

507: \begin{figure*}

508: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{f5.eps}

509: \caption{The model predictions for the correlation between feature

510: strength (x-axis) and SED shape (y-axis). The SED shape is the 

511: ratio of the flux (in Jy) at 30 $\mu$m and at 13 $\mu$m. Left panel

512: is for the continuous size distribution models. Right panel is for

513: the bimodal size distribution models.

514: \label{fig-feature-sedshape}}

515: \end{figure*}

516: 

517: \revised{In another recent paper, Watson et

518:   al.~(\citeyear{watsonleisen:2007}) found a correlation between the

519:   crystallinity of the dust as deduced from Spitzer IRS spectra and the SED

520:   overall shape. Disks that are more crystalline appear to have a flatter

521:   geometry. Since there appears to be no physical reason why crystalline

522:   grains are typically smaller than amorphous ones, the sedimentation

523:   filtering process we discussed in this paper does not predict any

524:   correlation between these things to happen. The explanation for the

525:   correlation found by Watson et al.\ must therefore lie in something

526:   else. In principle, as mentioned before, a perfect line-up of crystalline

527:   peaks in the 9-11 $\mu$m region of the spectrum may mimic a flat-topped

528:   feature from large amorphous silicates, and may affect the conclusions of

529:   Bouwman et al.~(\citeyear{bouwman:2008}). But it appears that the analysis

530:   by Bouwman et al.~is precise enough to exclude this possibility.}

531: 

532: 

533: 

534: \section{Conclusion}

535: \label{sec-conclusion}

536: We have modeled the sedimentation of grains of different sizes in a disk,

537: with particular emphasis on the 10 $\mu$m silicate feature shape.  We

538: expected that sedimentation removes big grains from the surface layers,

539: leaving the smaller grains behind, so that the spectrum will then be

540: dominated by a pointy 10 $\mu$m feature indicative of small grains, even if

541: the initial size distribution is dominated by the flat-topped features

542: characteristic of big (3$\mu$m) grains. We find that this is indeed the case

543: for {\em bimodal} size distributions if the smaller grains size is

544: chosen extremely small.  In our model  we have a clearly defined

545: population of $3\mu$m size grains and a clearly defined $\ll 0.1\mu$m

546: grains.  The arising effect is reasonably strong because there is a

547: large difference in the surface-to-mass ratio between these grains,

548: and therefore a strong effect on differential settling.

549: 

550: On the other hand, our attempt to produce this effect with a

551: continuous size distribution have basically failed.  With a continuous

552: (powerlaw) distribution of grains spanning the range $0.001\mu$m all

553: the way to $3\mu$m, we find only a very weak effect, much less than

554: what is observed. Therefore, unless the dust size distribution is strongly

555: bimodal distribution with just the right large and small grain sizes,

556: this excludes sedimentation alone as the sole origin of the different

557: 10 $\mu$m silicate feature strengths and shapes seen in the spectra of

558: protoplanetary disks.  In other words, the shape and strength of the

559: silicate feature, which originates in the surface layers of the disk,

560: is reasonably representative of the dust hidden deep within the disk,

561: at least for grains in the size range up to a few micron.  Changes in

562: the 10\um feature do indicate changes in the small grain population in

563: the disk.

564: 

565: A similar conclusion can be made with respect to the influence of the

566: distribution of grains on the overall geometry of the disk.  A pure

567: sedimentation model (i.e.\ without growth) predicts that disks with low 30

568: $\mu$m flux over 13 $\mu$m flux ratio should typically have a stronger and

569: pointier 10 $\mu$m.  This is most clearly expected for the \emph{bimodal}

570: size distribution.  For the \emph{continuous} size distribution, this

571: correlation is expected to be weaker because of the weaker effect of

572: sedimentation on the silicate feature shape.  But at the very least such a

573: model does {\em not} predict the \emph{opposite} trend: that weak 30-over-13

574: flux ratio correlates with a weak feature, which is the trend observed by

575: Bouwman et al.~(\citeyear{bouwman:2008}). If this trend can be confirmed for

576: a larger sample, this would then constitute rather strong proof that

577: sedimentation alone cannot be held responsible for the variety in observed

578: silicate strengths.  Dust coagulation, in combination of course with

579: sedimentation, must then play a vital role in producing the different

580: silicate strengths and shapes observed in disks around young stars.

581: 

582: 

583: \begin{acknowledgements}

584:   We wish to thank Rens Waters, Thomas Henning, and Jeroen Bouwman for very

585:   stimulating discussions.

586: \end{acknowledgements}

587: 

588: %\bibliographystyle{apj.bst}

589: %\bibliography{/Users/cornelisdullemond/science/papers/citations/citations}

590: 

591: \begin{thebibliography}{25}

592: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi

593: 

594: \bibitem[{{Apai} {et~al.}(2005){Apai}, {Pascucci}, {Bouwman}, {Natta},

595:   {Henning}, \& {Dullemond}}]{apaiscience:2005}

596: {Apai}, D., {Pascucci}, I., {Bouwman}, J., {Natta}, A., {Henning}, T., \&

597:   {Dullemond}, C.~P. 2005, Science, 310, 834

598: 

599: \bibitem[{{Bouwman} {et~al.}(2008){Bouwman}, {Henning}, {Hillenbrand}, {Meyer},

600:   {Pascucci}, {Carpenter}, {Hines}, {Kim}, {Silverstone}, {Hollenbach}, \&

601:   {Wolf}}]{bouwman:2008}

602: {Bouwman}, J., {Henning}, T., {Hillenbrand}, L.~A., {Meyer}, M.~R., {Pascucci},

603:   I., {Carpenter}, J., {Hines}, D., {Kim}, J.~S., {Silverstone}, M.~D.,

604:   {Hollenbach}, D., \& {Wolf}, S. 2008, ArXiv e-prints, 802

605: 

606: \bibitem[{{Bouwman} {et~al.}(2001){Bouwman}, {Meeus}, {de Koter}, {Hony},

607:   {Dominik}, \& {Waters}}]{bouwmanmeeus:2001}

608: {Bouwman}, J., {Meeus}, G., {de Koter}, A., {Hony}, S., {Dominik}, C., \&

609:   {Waters}, L.~B.~F.~M. 2001, \aap, 375, 950

610: 

611: \bibitem[{{Calvet} {et~al.}(1991){Calvet}, {Patino}, {Magris}, \&

612:   {D'Alessio}}]{calvetpatino:1991}

613: {Calvet}, N., {Patino}, A., {Magris}, G.~C., \& {D'Alessio}, P. 1991, \apj,

614:   380, 617

615: 

616: \bibitem[{{Chiang} \& {Goldreich}(1997)}]{chianggold:1997}

617: {Chiang}, E.~I. \& {Goldreich}, P. 1997, \apj, 490, 368+

618: 

619: \bibitem[{{Chiang} {et~al.}(2001){Chiang}, {Joung}, {Creech-Eakman}, {Qi},

620:   {Kessler}, {Blake}, \& {van Dishoeck}}]{chiangjoung:2001}

621: {Chiang}, E.~I., {Joung}, M.~K., {Creech-Eakman}, M.~J., {Qi}, C., {Kessler},

622:   J.~E., {Blake}, G.~A., \& {van Dishoeck}, E.~F. 2001, \apj, 547, 1077

623: 

624: \bibitem[{{D'Alessio} {et~al.}(2006){D'Alessio}, {Calvet}, {Hartmann},

625:   {Franco-Hern{\'a}ndez}, \& {Serv{\'{\i}}n}}]{dalessiocalvet:2006}

626: {D'Alessio}, P., {Calvet}, N., {Hartmann}, L., {Franco-Hern{\'a}ndez}, R., \&

627:   {Serv{\'{\i}}n}, H. 2006, \apj, 638, 314

628: 

629: \bibitem[{{Dubrulle} {et~al.}(1995){Dubrulle}, {Morfill}, \&

630:   {Sterzik}}]{dubmorster:1995}

631: {Dubrulle}, B., {Morfill}, G., \& {Sterzik}, M. 1995, Icarus, 114, 237

632: 

633: \bibitem[{{Dullemond} \& {Dominik}(2004{\natexlab{a}})}]{duldomdisk:2004}

634: {Dullemond}, C.~P. \& {Dominik}, C. 2004{\natexlab{a}}, \aap, 417, 159

635: 

636: \bibitem[{{Dullemond} \& {Dominik}(2004{\natexlab{b}})}]{duldomsett:2004}

637: ---. 2004{\natexlab{b}}, \aap, 421, 1075

638: 

639: \bibitem[{{Dullemond} \& {Dominik}(2005)}]{duldom:2005}

640: ---. 2005, \aap, 434, 971

641: 

642: \bibitem[{{Dullemond} {et~al.}(2007){Dullemond}, {Henning}, {Visser}, {Geers},

643:   {van Dishoeck}, \& {Pontoppidan}}]{dullemond:2007}

644: {Dullemond}, C.~P., {Henning}, T., {Visser}, R., {Geers}, V.~C., {van

645:   Dishoeck}, E.~F., \& {Pontoppidan}, K.~M. 2007, \aap, 473, 457

646: 

647: \bibitem[{{Furlan} {et~al.}(2006){Furlan}, {Hartmann}, {Calvet}, {D'Alessio},

648:   {Franco-Hern{\'a}ndez}, {Forrest}, {Watson}, {Uchida}, {Sargent}, {Green},

649:   {Keller}, \& {Herter}}]{furlanhartmann:2006}

650: {Furlan}, E., {Hartmann}, L., {Calvet}, N., {D'Alessio}, P.,

651:   {Franco-Hern{\'a}ndez}, R., {Forrest}, W.~J., {Watson}, D.~M., {Uchida},

652:   K.~I., {Sargent}, B., {Green}, J.~D., {Keller}, L.~D., \& {Herter}, T.~L.

653:   2006, \apjs, 165, 568

654: 

655: \bibitem[{{Honda} {et~al.}(2003){Honda}, {Kataza}, {Okamoto}, {Miyata},

656:   {Yamashita}, {Sako}, {Takubo}, \& {Onaka}}]{hondakataza:2003}

657: {Honda}, M., {Kataza}, H., {Okamoto}, Y.~K., {Miyata}, T., {Yamashita}, T.,

658:   {Sako}, S., {Takubo}, S., \& {Onaka}, T. 2003, \apjl, 585, L59

659: 

660: \bibitem[{{Kessler-Silacci} {et~al.}(2006){Kessler-Silacci}, {Augereau},

661:   {Dullemond}, {Geers}, {Lahuis}, {Evans}, {van Dishoeck}, {Blake}, {Boogert},

662:   {Brown}, {J{\o}rgensen}, {Knez}, \& {Pontoppidan}}]{kessleraugereau:2006}

663: {Kessler-Silacci}, J., {Augereau}, J.-C., {Dullemond}, C.~P., {Geers}, V.,

664:   {Lahuis}, F., {Evans}, N.~J., {van Dishoeck}, E.~F., {Blake}, G.~A.,

665:   {Boogert}, A.~C.~A., {Brown}, J., {J{\o}rgensen}, J.~K., {Knez}, C., \&

666:   {Pontoppidan}, K.~M. 2006, \apj, 639, 275

667: 

668: \bibitem[{{Mathis} {et~al.}(1977){Mathis}, {Rumpl}, \& {Nordsieck}}]{mrn:1977}

669: {Mathis}, J.~S., {Rumpl}, W., \& {Nordsieck}, K.~H. 1977, \apj, 217, 425

670: 

671: \bibitem[{{Meeus} {et~al.}(2001){Meeus}, {Waters}, {Bouwman}, {van den Ancker},

672:   {Waelkens}, \& {Malfait}}]{meeuswatersbouw:2001}

673: {Meeus}, G., {Waters}, L. B. F.~M., {Bouwman}, J., {van den Ancker}, M.~E.,

674:   {Waelkens}, C., \& {Malfait}, K. 2001, \aap, 365, 476

675: 

676: \bibitem[{{Min} {et~al.}(2005){Min}, {Hovenier}, \& {de Koter}}]{minhove:2005}

677: {Min}, M., {Hovenier}, J.~W., \& {de Koter}, A. 2005, \aap, 432, 909

678: 

679: \bibitem[{{Miyake} \& {Nakagawa}(1995)}]{miyakenaka:1995}

680: {Miyake}, K. \& {Nakagawa}, Y. 1995, \apj, 441, 361

681: 

682: \bibitem[{{Schegerer} {et~al.}(2006){Schegerer}, {Wolf}, {Voshchinnikov},

683:   {Przygodda}, \& {Kessler-Silacci}}]{schegerer:2006}

684: {Schegerer}, A., {Wolf}, S., {Voshchinnikov}, N.~V., {Przygodda}, F., \&

685:   {Kessler-Silacci}, J.~E. 2006, \aap, 456, 535

686: 

687: \bibitem[{{Sicilia-Aguilar} {et~al.}(2007){Sicilia-Aguilar}, {Hartmann},

688:   {Watson}, {Bohac}, {Henning}, \& {Bouwman}}]{sicilia:2007}

689: {Sicilia-Aguilar}, A., {Hartmann}, L.~W., {Watson}, D., {Bohac}, C., {Henning},

690:   T., \& {Bouwman}, J. 2007, \apj, 659, 1637

691: 

692: \bibitem[{{van Boekel} {et~al.}(2005){van Boekel}, {Min}, {Waters}, {de Koter},

693:   {Dominik}, {van den Ancker}, \& {Bouwman}}]{vboekelmin:2005}

694: {van Boekel}, R., {Min}, M., {Waters}, L.~B.~F.~M., {de Koter}, A., {Dominik},

695:   C., {van den Ancker}, M.~E., \& {Bouwman}, J. 2005, \aap, 437, 189

696: 

697: \bibitem[{{van Boekel} {et~al.}(2003){van Boekel}, {Waters}, {Dominik},

698:   {Bouwman}, {de Koter}, {Dullemond}, \& {Paresce}}]{vanboekelwaters:2003}

699: {van Boekel}, R., {Waters}, L.~B.~F.~M., {Dominik}, C., {Bouwman}, J., {de

700:   Koter}, A., {Dullemond}, C.~P., \& {Paresce}, F. 2003, \aap, 400, L21

701: 

702: \bibitem[{{Voshchinnikov} {et~al.}(2006){Voshchinnikov}, {Il'in}, {Henning}, \&

703:   {Dubkova}}]{voshch:2006}

704: {Voshchinnikov}, N.~V., {Il'in}, V.~B., {Henning}, T., \& {Dubkova}, D.~N.

705:   2006, \aap, 445, 167

706: 

707: \bibitem[{{Watson} {et~al.}(2007){Watson}, {Leisenring}, {Furlan}, {Bohac},

708:   {Sargent}, {Forrest}, {Calvet}, {Hartmann}, {Nordhaus}, {Green}, {Kim},

709:   {Sloan}, {Chen}, {Keller}, {dAlessio}, {Najita}, {Uchida}, \&

710:   {Houck}}]{watsonleisen:2007}

711: {Watson}, D.~M., {Leisenring}, J.~M., {Furlan}, E., {Bohac}, C.~J., {Sargent},

712:   B., {Forrest}, W.~J., {Calvet}, N., {Hartmann}, L., {Nordhaus}, J.~T.,

713:   {Green}, J.~D., {Kim}, K.~H., {Sloan}, G.~C., {Chen}, C.~H., {Keller}, L.~D.,

714:   {dAlessio}, P., {Najita}, J., {Uchida}, K.~I., \& {Houck}, J.~R. 2007, ArXiv

715:   e-prints, 704

716: 

717: \end{thebibliography}

718: 

719: 

720: \end{document}

721: