1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: %\usepackage{emulateapj5}
3:
4: %\documentclass[draft]{aastex}
5: %\slugcomment{to be published in Astrophysical Journal Letters}
6: %\lefthead{Liang et al.} \righthead{AEROSOLS ON CEGPs}
7: %\received{2003 November 20}
8: \begin{document}
9: \title{On the Insignificance of Photochemical Hydrocarbon Aerosols in the Atmospheres of Close-in Extrasolar Giant Planets}
10:
11: \author{Mao-Chang Liang$^{1}$, Sara Seager$^{2}$, Christopher D. Parkinson$^{1,3}$, Anthony Y.-T. Lee$^{1}$, and Yuk L. Yung$^{1,3}$}
12: \affil{$^{1}$Division of Geological and Planetary Sciences, California Institute of Technology, 1201 E. California Blvd., Pasadena, CA 91125}
13: \affil{$^{2}$Department of Terrestrial Magnetism, Carnegie Institution of Washington, 5241 Broad Branch Rd. NW Washington, D.C. 20015}
14: \affil{$^{3}$Jet Propulsion Laboratory/California Institute of Technology and the NASA Astrobiology Institute}
15:
16: \begin{abstract}
17: The close-in extrasolar giant planets (CEGPs) reside in irradiated
18: environments much more intense than that of the giant planets in
19: our solar system. The high UV irradiance strongly influences their
20: photochemistry and the general current view believed that this
21: high UV flux will greatly enhance photochemical production of
22: hydrocarbon aerosols. In this letter, we investigate hydrocarbon
23: aerosol formation in the atmospheres of CEGPs. We find that the
24: abundances of hydrocarbons in the atmospheres of CEGPs are
25: significantly less than that of Jupiter except for models in which
26: the CH$_4$ abundance is unreasonably high (as high as CO) for the
27: hot (effective temperatures $\gtrsim 1000$~K) atmospheres.
28: Moreover, the hydrocarbons will be condensed out to form aerosols
29: only when the temperature-pressure profiles of the species
30: intersect with the saturation profiles---a case almost certainly
31: not realized in the hot CEGPs atmospheres. Hence our models show
32: that photochemical hydrocarbon aerosols are insignificant in the
33: atmospheres of CEGPs. In contrast, Jupiter and Saturn have a much
34: higher abundance of hydrocarbon aerosols in their atmospheres
35: which are responsible for strong absorption shortward of 600~nm.
36: Thus the insignificance of photochemical hydrocarbon aerosols in
37: the atmospheres of CEGPs rules out one class of models with low
38: albedos and featureless spectra shortward of 600~nm.
39: \end{abstract}
40:
41: \keywords{planetary systems---radiative transfer---stars:
42: atmosphere---stars: individual (HD~209458)}
43:
44: \section{Introduction}
45:
46: Hazes and clouds\footnote{``Hazes" refers to the diffuse and
47: optically thin aerosol distribution, while ``clouds" refers to the
48: optically thick regions \citep{Wetal86}.} in the atmospheres of
49: jovian planets can strongly affect the ability to determine
50: atmospheric composition at ultraviolet to infrared wavelengths. At
51: wavelengths shorter than $\sim$600~nm, the atmospheric line
52: features in the jovian planets are ``washed out" by the
53: hazes/clouds in the atmospheres of planets (e.g., Karkoschka \&
54: Tomasko 1993; Karkoschka 1998). The main chemical compositions of
55: the hazes/clouds on Jupiter are believed to be H$_2$O-NH$_3$,
56: NH$_4$SH, NH$_3$, N$_2$H$_4$, and hydrocarbons from several bar to
57: $\sim$0.1~mbar
58: \citep{WL73,S83,Wetal86,PH91,Getal96,Betal98a,Betal98b,Wetal03}.
59: Saturn may have a composition profile similar to Jupiter since
60: they have similar 300-1000~nm spectra (e.g., Karkoschka 1998).
61: Saturn's albedo has been successfully modelled by assuming a
62: dichotomy in the aerosol distribution between the troposphere and
63: stratosphere, where the number density of aerosols is much lower
64: in the stratosphere \citep{KT93}. It is found that the
65: stratospheric aerosols are very dark at $\sim$300~nm, implying the
66: presence of hydrocarbon aerosols.
67:
68: Since the recent increase in sample size of extrasolar planets
69: (e.g., Udry et al. 2002; Butler et al. 2003), the planetary
70: formation environment has been statistically analyzed, although
71: not conclusively \citep{Fetal02,SIMRU03}. The close-in extrasolar
72: giant planets (CEGPs, with semi-major axes $\lesssim 0.05$ AU,
73: also known as ``hot Jupiters") are of particular interest since
74: they have more active chemical processes in their atmospheres
75: (e.g., Liang et al. 2003) and the evolution of the atmospheres can
76: currently be studied observationally (e.g., Vidal-Madjar et al.
77: 2003, 2004). A number of simulations in the atmospheres of CEGPs
78: have been performed to study the albedos and reflection spectra by
79: including the formation of high temperature condensates, such as
80: silicates (e.g., Sudarsky et al. 2000; Seager et al. 2000). The
81: importance and existence of the atmospheric aerosols have been
82: addressed and discussed widely in recent years (e.g., Baraffe et
83: al. 2003) and it is generally believed that more UV flux will
84: result in more aerosols. The photochemistry in jovian atmospheres
85: results in photochemical aerosols which significantly affect the
86: ultraviolet-visible spectra and albedos; hence we were motivated
87: to simulate the formation of various molecules, e.g.,
88: hydrocarbons, ammonia, and sulfuric acid, which are the possible
89: sources of aerosols, in the atmospheres of CEGPs. In this letter,
90: we focus on hydrocarbons and hydrocarbon aerosol formation.
91:
92: \section{Model}
93: A one-dimensional Caltech/Jet Propulsion Laboratory KINETICS model
94: is applied to HD~209458b's atmosphere, which is divided into 80
95: plane-parallel layers along the radial direction. The planet is
96: probably tidally locked and our simulation is performed on the day
97: side. The model assumes the four parent molecules$:$ H$_2$, CO,
98: H$_2$O, and CH$_4$. The abundances of CO and H$_2$O for the
99: reference model (Model A) are $3.6 \times 10^{-4}$ and $4.5 \times
100: 10^{-4}$, respectively. The CH$_4$ abundance is taken to be $3.9
101: \times 10^{-8}$, which is the low bound predicted by \citet{SS00}.
102: The temperature-pressure profiles are not certain, because the
103: global circulation and high temperature condensation are not
104: constrained in generating the model atmosphere. Our reference
105: profile (solid curve in Figure~\ref{profile}) is a derivative of a
106: cloud-free and high temperature condensation-free model. The
107: stellar irradiance is assumed to be uniformly distributed over the
108: whole planet; this gives the lower bound of the temperature
109: profile in the atmosphere of HD~209458b. In view of the
110: aforementioned uncertainty, two alternative temperature profiles,
111: which assume the redistribution of the stellar irradiance evenly
112: only on the day side, are examined \citep{Betal02,Fetal03}.
113:
114: A one-dimensional, photochemical-diffusive, diurnally averaged
115: numerical model for hydrocarbon photochemistry has been presented
116: by \citet{Getal96} in the atmosphere of Jupiter. In that study,
117: important chemical cycles and pathways involving C$_1$-C$_{4}$
118: species are identified. Included in this analysis are sensitivity
119: studies on a standard reference model with respect to variations
120: in the eddy-diffusion profile, solar flux, atomic hydrogen influx,
121: latitude, temperature, and important chemical reaction rates. The
122: model reproduces extensive observations of hydrocarbon species as
123: well as He 584 \AA\ and H Lyman-$\alpha$ airglow emissions on
124: Jupiter. Due to the incomplete laboratory measurements of reaction
125: rates and photodissociation quantum yields in the C$_3$ and higher
126: hydrocarbons, we use a simplified version of the hydrocarbon
127: photochemical model by \citet{Getal96}. The hydrocarbon chemistry
128: up to the C$_2$ hydrocarbons is modelled thoroughly in the
129: atmosphere of HD~209458b. The C$_1$ and C$_2$ hydrocarbons are the
130: fundamental ingredient for building up complex hydrocarbons, e.g.,
131: benzene and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), through long
132: chain polyynes and polymerization. The chemical pathways among the
133: C$_1$ and C$_2$ in the atmospheres of CEGPs were first pointed out
134: by \citet{Letal03}, which are fundamentally different from the
135: pathways on the colder jovian planets \citep{Getal96}. The full
136: version of the hydrocarbon photochemical model is also verified.
137: The oxygen related photochemistry is taken from
138: \citet{Mosesetal00}.
139:
140:
141: Figure~\ref{profile} shows the temperature profiles for three
142: models \citep{SS00,Betal02,Fetal03}. For each case, we have
143: examined five different initial chemical abundances for CH$_4$,
144: CO, and H$_2$O as tabulated in Table~\ref{abundance}. Due to the
145: unconstrained CH$_4$ abundance, we have varied it by several
146: orders of magnitudes to study its sensitivity in the formation of
147: hydrocarbons. However, we expect CO to be the dominant reservoir
148: of carbon for the range of temperatures in the atmospheres of
149: CEGPs and assume this in our reference Model~A. The models of
150: \citet{Betal02} and \citet{Fetal03} go only to 1 and 0.1~$\mu$bar
151: pressure levels, respectively$:$ we assume the profiles are
152: isothermal above these pressure levels. The parameters for the
153: reference eddy-diffusion profile ($\kappa = \kappa_0
154: (n/n_0)^{-\alpha}$, where $n$ is number density) are taken to be
155: $\kappa_0 = 2.4\times 10^{7}$~cm$^2$~s$^{-1}$, $n_0 = 5.8\times
156: 10^{18}$~cm$^{-3}$, and $\alpha = 5.6$. We also varied $\kappa_0$
157: and $\alpha$ to test the sensitivity of the results on
158: eddy-diffusion (see Table~\ref{column}). The fiducial
159: eddy-diffusion used here is consistent with the upper limit
160: estimates from \citet{SG02}.
161:
162: \clearpage
163:
164: \begin{figure*}
165: \epsscale{1}
166: \plotone{f1.eps} \caption[3 modelled T-P
167: profiles]{Vertical temperature profiles of the reference model
168: (solid line), \citet[dashed line]{Betal02}, \citet[dash-dotted
169: line]{Fetal03}, and Jupiter (dotted line).
170: We assume the profiles of \citet{Betal02} and \citet{Fetal03} are
171: isothermal above their reported pressure levels. \label{profile}}
172: \end{figure*}
173:
174: \clearpage
175:
176: \begin{deluxetable}{rrrr}
177: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize} \tablecolumns{4} \tablecaption{Initial
178: Chemical Abundances of CH$_4$, CO, and H$_2$O for Models A-E.
179: \label{abundance}} \tablewidth{0pt} \tablehead{
180: \multicolumn{1}{c}{Model} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{CH$_4$} &
181: \multicolumn{1}{c}{CO} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{H$_2$O} }
182: %
183: \startdata
184: A &$ 3.9\times 10^{-8}$ & $ 3.6\times 10^{-4}$ & $ 3.6\times 10^{-4}$ \\
185: B &$ 3.9\times 10^{-8}$ & $ 3.6\times 10^{-4}$ & $ 3.6\times 10^{-5}$ \\
186: C &$ 3.9\times 10^{-8}$ & $ 3.6\times 10^{-5}$ & $ 3.6\times 10^{-4}$ \\
187: D &$ 3.9\times 10^{-5}$ & $ 3.6\times 10^{-4}$ & $ 3.6\times 10^{-4}$ \\
188: E &$ 3.6\times 10^{-4}$ & $ 3.6\times 10^{-4}$ & $ 3.6\times 10^{-4}$
189: \enddata
190: \end{deluxetable}
191:
192: \clearpage
193:
194: \section{Results}
195:
196: Our modeling shows that gas phase hydrocarbons are most likely
197: present in very low abundances in the atmospheres of CEGPs. This
198: result is in contrast to the high abundances of hydrocarbons on
199: the solar jovian planets. The vertical profiles of the
200: hydrocarbons for various models are shown in Figure~\ref{mr} and
201: the maximum and column integrated hydrocarbons are tabulated in
202: Table~\ref{column}. The hydrocarbons are produced and concentrated
203: mainly in the middle atmosphere, around 0.1~mbar. Because the
204: framework of hydrocarbon formation on the jovian planets is well
205: understood, we explain our results in comparison to the
206: photochemical production of hydrocarbons on the jovian planets.
207:
208: There are two known chemical schemes for the formation of
209: hydrocarbons in the jovian atmospheres and their satellites. The
210: first is via the synthesis of long chain polyynes from C$_2$H$_2$
211: \citep{Aetal80}. The second is the polymerization of C$_2$H$_2$ to
212: form ring compounds \citep{Wetal00}. In both cases, C$_2$H$_2$
213: plays a crucial role. Therefore, to explain why hydrocarbon
214: aerosols are not formed in CEGPs, we have to explain why
215: C$_2$H$_2$ concentrations are so low. This is due primarily to the
216: high temperatures in the atmospheres of CEGPs and secondarily to
217: the high UV flux. Both the high temperatures and high UV fluxes
218: are a direct consequence of the CEGPs' closer proximity to their
219: parent stars.
220:
221: One reason for low hydrocarbon abundances in CEGPs is because the
222: abundance of CH$_4$ is many orders of magnitudes lower than that
223: in the jovian atmospheres. The CH$_4$ abundance is important
224: because in the jovian atmospheres hydrocarbon formation is driven
225: by the photodissociation of CH$_4$ and the subsequent reactions of
226: the products (e.g., Gladstone et al. 1996). The three species,
227: C$_2$H$_2$, C$_2$H$_4$, and C$_2$H$_6$, are important for forming
228: more complex hydrocarbons and hydrocarbon aerosols. The primary
229: reservoir of C in CEGPs is CO, not CH$_4$, as in the jovian
230: planets. This is due to the much higher temperatures in the
231: atmospheres of CEGPs (effective temperatures $\gtrsim 1000$~K)
232: compared to Jupiter (effective temperature $\sim$130~K).
233: \citet{Letal03} showed that C compounds are initiated by C atoms
234: produced by the photolysis of CO in the upper atmosphere. The
235: hydrocarbons (C$_2$H$_2$, C$_2$H$_4$, and C$_2$H$_6$) are formed
236: along with CH$_4$ from the C atoms.
237:
238: A second reason for the low abundance of hydrocarbons is that
239: hydrogenation of C$_2$H$_2$ to CH$_4$ by the pathways given in
240: \citet{Letal03} (see also Chapter~5 of Yung and DeMore 1999)
241: rapidly removes C$_2$H$_2$. As pointed out by \citet{Letal03}, the
242: CEGPs have a high concentration of H atoms formed via an H$_2$O
243: mediated process. Hydrogenation is the dominant removal process of
244: C$_2$H$_2$ in CEGPs and is driven by the high concentration of H
245: atoms. Unlike the colder jovian atmospheres, the hydrocarbon loss
246: via photolysis is minor in the atmospheres of CEGPs. A key
247: reaction in hydrogenation of C$_2$H$_2$ to CH$_4$ is the reaction
248: C$_2$H$_3$ + H$_2$ $\rightarrow$ C$_2$H$_4$ + H. The reaction that
249: breaks the H$_2$ bond is fast for the high temperatures in the
250: atmospheres of CEGPs; however in the colder atmospheres of the
251: jovian planets this reaction is the major bottleneck to
252: hydrogenation of C$_2$H$_2$. Hydrogenation as a cause of low
253: hydrocarbon abundances is therefore related to the high
254: temperatures in the atmospheres of CEGPs which are hot enough not
255: only for the rapid hydrogenation rate but also for H$_2$O to be
256: present in vapor form. In contrast to the jovian planets and their
257: satellites, water is frozen into ice and not available for
258: photolysis.
259:
260:
261: To show the robustness of the result of low hydrocarbon abundances
262: in the atmospheres of CEGPs, we varied the input parameters to our
263: photochemical model. We find that over a broad range of input
264: parameters, i.e., initial chemical abundances and temperature and
265: eddy-diffusion profiles, the hydrocarbon formation in the
266: atmospheres of CEGPs never exceeds that of Jupiter. In our model
267: of an extremely abundant CH$_4$ (Model~E), the column integrated
268: hydrocarbon is about 0.5 that of Jupiter's (see
269: Table~\ref{column}). However, this is an extreme and unlikely high
270: CH$_4$ abundance---the hot atmospheric temperatures favor CO as
271: the dominant reservoir of C.
272:
273: \clearpage
274:
275: \begin{figure*}
276: \epsscale{1.0}
277: \plotone{f2.eps} \caption[major pathways of C and
278: C2]{Major photochemical pathways for forming C and C$_2$ species.
279: \label{cc2}}
280: \end{figure*}
281:
282: \clearpage
283:
284: \begin{deluxetable}{rlllll}
285: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize} \tablecolumns{6} \tablecaption{Mixing
286: Ratios of CH$_4$, C$_2$H$_2$, C$_2$H$_4$, and C$_2$H$_6$ for
287: Models A-E at 0.1~mbar. Jupiter's Results at 2~$\mu$bar are
288: Included for Comparison. \label{column}} \tablewidth{0pt}
289: \tablehead{ \multicolumn{1}{c}{Model\tablenotemark{a}} &
290: \multicolumn{1}{c}{CH$_4$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{C$_2$H$_2$} &
291: \multicolumn{1}{c}{C$_2$H$_4$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{C$_2$H$_6$} &
292: \multicolumn{1}{c}{Total\tablenotemark{b}} }
293: %
294: \startdata
295: Jupiter & $1\times 10^{- 3}$ & $1\times 10^{- 5}$ & $3\times 10^{- 8}$ & $2\times 10^{- 5}$ & 1 \\
296: A~1 & $3\times 10^{- 6}$ & $8\times 10^{- 7}$ & $3\times 10^{- 8}$ & $2\times 10^{-11}$ & $7\times 10^{-4}$ \\
297: \tablenotemark{d}~A~1 & $2\times 10^{- 6}$ & $6\times 10^{- 7}$ & $3\times 10^{- 8}$ & $1\times 10^{-11}$ & $7\times 10^{-4}$ \\
298: \tablenotemark{e}~A~1 & $4\times 10^{- 6}$ & $9\times 10^{- 7}$ & $4\times 10^{- 8}$ & $2\times 10^{-11}$ & $1\times 10^{-3}$ \\
299: \tablenotemark{f}~A~1 & $5\times 10^{- 7}$ & $1\times 10^{- 7}$ & $4\times 10^{- 9}$ & $1\times 10^{-12}$ & $1\times 10^{-4}$ \\
300: B~1 & $9\times 10^{- 6}$ & $2\times 10^{- 6}$ & $1\times 10^{- 7}$ & $6\times 10^{-11}$ & $2\times 10^{-3}$ \\
301: C~1 & $5\times 10^{- 7}$ & $1\times 10^{- 7}$ & $4\times 10^{- 9}$ & $1\times 10^{-12}$ & $7\times 10^{-5}$ \\
302: D~1 & $3\times 10^{- 5}$ & $5\times 10^{- 6}$ & $5\times 10^{- 7}$ & $3\times 10^{-10}$ & $7\times 10^{-3}$ \\
303: E~1 & $3\times 10^{- 4}$ & $2\times 10^{- 5}$ & $6\times 10^{- 6}$ & $4\times 10^{- 8}$ & 0.4 \\
304: E~2 & $2\times 10^{- 4}$ & $9\times 10^{- 6}$ & $1\times 10^{- 5}$ & $1\times 10^{- 9}$ & 0.3 \\
305: E~3 & $4\times 10^{- 4}$ & $2\times 10^{- 5}$ & $1\times 10^{- 5}$ & $9\times 10^{- 9}$ & 0.6
306: \enddata
307: \tablecomments{The hydrocarbons have maximum mixing ratios at
308: about 0.1~mbar in the atmosphere of HD~209458b, while on Jupiter
309: the maxima are at about 2~$\mu$bar (see Figure~\ref{mr}).}
310:
311: \tablenotetext{a}{1$:$ reference temperature profile \citep{SS00}.
312: 2$:$ \citet{Betal02} temperature profile. 3$:$ \citet{Fetal03}
313: temperature profile.}
314:
315: \tablenotetext{b}{Total$:$ column integrated abundances of
316: hydrocarbons (C$_2$H$_2$ + C$_2$H$_4$ + C$_2$H$_6$) at $< 2$~bar.
317: The abundance is normalized to $2\times 10^{-7}$ which is the
318: value calculated in the atmosphere of Jupiter (e.g., Gladstone et
319: al. 1996).}
320:
321: \tablenotetext{d}{Exponent of eddy-diffusion is taken to be 0.65.}
322:
323: \tablenotetext{e}{Eddy-diffusion is a factor of two smaller than
324: the reference eddy-diffusion.}
325:
326: \tablenotetext{f}{Eddy-diffusion is a factor of ten greater than
327: the reference eddy-diffusion.}
328:
329: \end{deluxetable}
330:
331: \clearpage
332:
333: \begin{figure*}
334: \epsscale{0.8} \plotone{f3.eps} \caption[hydrocarbon mixing
335: ratios]{Comparison of volume mixing ratios of C$_2$H$_2$ (upper
336: panel), C$_2$H$_4$ (middle panel), and C$_2$H$_6$ (lower panel)
337: for Models A, D, E, and Jupiter (solid, dashed, dash-dotted, and
338: dotted lines, respectively). The high C$_2$H$_2$ mixing ratio at
339: the top of the atmosphere is due to the high photolysis rate of
340: CO. \label{mr}}
341: \end{figure*}
342:
343: \clearpage
344:
345: \section{Discussion \label{discussion}}
346: Using a simplified version of the Caltech/JPL KINETICS model, we
347: have shown that the concentrations of the C$_2$H$_{2n}$ species
348: (see Table~\ref{column}) are insignificant in the atmospheres of
349: CEGPs. These C$_2$H$_{2n}$ compounds are important sources for
350: forming more complex C$_x$H$_y$ species, such as benzene and PAHs,
351: which will lead to the formation of hydrocarbon aerosols (e.g.,
352: Richter \& Howard 2000, 2002). Although we have used a simplified
353: photochemical model that captures the main reactions, we have
354: tested Models A-E using the reference temperature profile
355: (solid-line in Figure~\ref{profile}) incorporating the full
356: version of hydrocarbon model by \citet{Getal96}. Even for this
357: case, we find that the C$_6$H$_6$ abundance for Model A is seven
358: orders of magnitudes less than that of Jupiter and is two orders
359: of magnitudes less for Model~E. Sulfur and nitrogen containing
360: compounds are other potential sources for aerosols and we plan to
361: explore their photochemistry in a later paper.
362:
363: The CEGPs are extremely close to the parent star; in such an
364: extreme environment, the C$_x$H$_y$ compounds will be lost either
365: primarily by reactions with atomic hydrogen or also by photolysis.
366: The production of atomic hydrogen is a consequence both of the
367: high temperatures that allow the presence of H$_2$O vapor and of
368: the high UV flux that causes photolysis of H$_2$O. Therefore, the
369: lifetime of the C$_x$H$_y$ compounds in the atmospheres of CEGPs
370: is predicted to be much shorter than that on Jupiter. The
371: lifetimes of the hydrocarbons are $\lesssim 10^3$~s, which are
372: significantly shorter than the simulated circulation timescale of
373: $\sim$day \citep{SG02,Cetal03}. Hence the abundances of the
374: hydrocarbons will be affected by a factor of `a few' through the
375: relatively longer lifetime of the atomic hydrogen ($\sim$1 day,
376: Liang et al. 2003).
377:
378: The condensation temperatures for hydrocarbons (e.g., C$_4$H$_2$
379: and C$_4$H$_{10}$) are below 200~K at $\sim$1~mbar (Moses et al.
380: 2000). These temperatures are far colder than expected in the
381: atmospheres of CEGPs \citep{SS00,Betal02,Fetal03}. Nevertheless,
382: we verified this by considering the saturation profiles together
383: with the the temperature profiles and found that the required
384: saturation pressure for CEGPs is far more than that present in the
385: atmospheres.
386:
387:
388: Using the measured Rayleigh scattering cross sections of He and
389: H$_2$ \citep{CD65,FB73}, the pressure level with optical depth
390: unity is $\sim$1~bar at 300~nm and increases rapidly at longer
391: wavelengths (Rayleigh scattering cross section $\propto
392: \lambda^{-4}$). Without the shielding from the atmospheric
393: aerosols and in the absence of high-temperature condensate clouds,
394: we may be able to observe the atmospheric composition at short
395: wavelengths up to the Rayleigh scattering limit.
396:
397: In this letter, we have emphasized photolytically driven processes
398: involving neutral species. We have not considered the possibility of
399: ion-neutral chemistry, such as that found in the polar region of
400: Jupiter \citep{Wetal03}. This may be important in the atmospheres of
401: CEGPs if the planet possesses a magnetic field. If the hydrocarbon
402: aerosols can be formed in the polar region, then global circulation
403: will redistribute them to lower latitudes. Stellar wind may be
404: another source of energetic charged particles that could result in the
405: formation of aerosols. Another subject not addressed in this work is
406: the formation of aerosols by heterogeneous nucleation in the presence
407: of pre-existing solid dust grains. In this case, the formation of
408: aerosols would be sensitive to the amount of dust particles in the
409: atmosphere.
410:
411: Additionally, we find that the mixing ratios of C, O, S, and
412: C$_2$H$_2$ (other than H) are high at the top of the atmosphere,
413: implying that these particles can readily escape. The recent
414: detection of C and O in the extended upper atmosphere of
415: HD~209458b by \citet{Vetal04} supports this assertion and we
416: comment that hydrodynamically escaping atmospheric species will
417: yield new information on the evolution of CEGPs.
418:
419:
420: \acknowledgements We thank M. Gerstell, J. McConnell, and R. L.
421: Shia for helpful discussions. We thank an anonymous referee for
422: constructive comments. The support of NASA Grant NAG5-6263 to the
423: California Institute of Technology is gratefully acknowledged.
424: This material is also based upon work supported by the National
425: Aeronautics and Space Administration through the NASA Astrobiology
426: Institute under Cooperative Agreement No. CAN-00-OSS-01 and issued
427: through the Office of Space Science. S.S. is supported by the
428: Carnegie Institution of Washington and by NASA Origins grant
429: NAG5-13478.
430:
431:
432: \begin{thebibliography}{}
433: \bibitem[Allen et al.(1980)]{Aetal80} Allen, M., Pinto, J. P.,
434: Yung, Y. L. 1980, \apjl, 242, L125
435: \bibitem[Banfield et al.(1998a)]{Betal98a} Banfield, D., Conrath, B. J., Gierasch, P. J.,
436: Nicholson, P. D., Matthews, K. 1998a, Icarus, 134, 11
437: \bibitem[Banfield et al.(1998b)]{Betal98b} Banfield, D., Gierasch, P. J., Bell, M., Ustinov, E.,
438: Ingersoll, A. P., Vasavada, A. R., West, R. A., Belton, M. J. S. 1998b, Icarus, 135, 230
439: \bibitem[Baraffe et al.(2003)]{Betal03} Baraffe, I, Chabrier, G., Barman, T. S., Allard, F., and
440: Hauschildt, P. H. 2003, \aap, 402, 701
441: \bibitem[Barman et al.(2002)]{Betal02} Barman, T. S., Hauschildt, P. H., Schweitzer, A.,
442: Stancil, P. C., Baron, E., Allard, F. 2002, \apjl, 569, L51
443: \bibitem[Butler et al.(2003)]{Butleretal03} Butler, R. P., Marcy, G. W., Vogt, S. S., Fischer, D. A.,
444: Henry, G. W., Laughlin, G., Wright, J. T. 2003, \apj, 582, 455
445: \bibitem[Chan \& Dalgarno (1965)]{CD65} Chan, Y. M., Dalgarno, A.
446: 1965, Proc. Phys. Soc., 85, 227
447: \bibitem[Cho et al.(2003)]{Cetal03} Cho, J. Y.-K., Menou, K., Hansen, B. M. S.; Seager, S. 2003, \apjl, 587, L117
448: \bibitem[Fischer et al.(2002)]{Fetal02} Fischer, D. A., Marcy, G. W., Butler, R. P., Laughlin, G., Vogt, S. S.
449: 2002, \apj, 564, 1028
450: \bibitem[Ford \& Browne (1973)]{FB73} Ford, A. L., Browne, J. C. 1973, Atomic Data, 5, 305
451: \bibitem[Fortney et al.(2003)]{Fetal03} Fortney, J. J., Sudarsky, D., Hubeny, I., Cooper, C. S.,
452: Hubbard, W. B., Burrows, A., Lunine, J. I. 2003, \apjl, 589, L615
453: \bibitem[Gladstone et al.(1996)]{Getal96} Gladstone, G. R., Allen, M., Yung, Y. L. 1996, Icarus, 119, 1
454: \bibitem[Karkoschka (1998)]{K98} Karkoschka, E. 1998, Icarus, 133, 134
455: \bibitem[Karkoschka \& Tomasko (1993)]{KT93} Karkoschka, E., Tomasko, M. G. 1993, Icarus, 106, 428
456: \bibitem[Liang et al.(2003)]{Letal03} Liang, M. C., Parkinson, C. D., Lee, A. Y.-T.,
457: Yung, Y. L., Seager, S. 2003, \apjl, 596, L247
458: \bibitem[Moses et al.(2000)]{Mosesetal00} Moses, J. I., Lellouch, E., B$\acute{\mbox{e}}$zard, B.,
459: Gladstone, G. R., Feuchtgruber, H., Allen, M. 2000, Icarus, 145, 166
460: \bibitem[Pryor \& Hord (1991)]{PH91} Pryor, W. R., Hord, C. W. 1991, Icarus, 91, 161
461: \bibitem[Richter \& Howard (2000)]{RH00} Richter, H., Howard, J. B. 2000, Prog. Energy Combust. Sci., 26, 565
462: \bibitem[Richter \& Howard (2002)]{RH02} Richter, H., Howard, J. B. 2002, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys., 4, 2038
463: \bibitem[Santos et al.(2003)]{SIMRU03} Santos, N. C., Israelian, G., Mayor, M.,
464: Rebolo, R., Udry, S. 2003, \aap, 398, 363
465: \bibitem[Seager \& Sasselov (2000)]{SS00} Seager, S., \& Sasselov, D. D. 2000, \apj, 537, 916
466: \bibitem[Seager et al.(2000)]{Setal00} Seager, S., Whitney, B. A., Sasselov, D. D. 2000, \apj, 540, 504
467: \bibitem[Showman \& Guillot (2002)]{SG02} Showman, A. P., Guillot, T. 2002, \aap, 385, 166
468: \bibitem[Strobel (1983)]{S83} Strobel, D. F. 1983, Int. Rev. Phys. Chem., 3, 145
469: \bibitem[Sudarsky et al.(2000)]{SBP00} Sudarsky, D., Burrows, A., Pinto, P. 2000, \apj, 538, 885
470: \bibitem[Udry et al.(2002)]{Uetal02} Udry, S., Mayor, M., Naef, D., Pepe, F., Queloz, D., Santos, N. C., Burnet, M.
471: 2002, \aap, 390, 267
472: \bibitem[Vidal-Madjar et al.(2003)]{VM03} Vidal-Madjar, A., Lecavelier des Etangs, A.,
473: Desert, J.-M., Ballester, G. E., Ferlet, R., Hebrard, G., Mayor, M. 2003, Nature, 422, 143
474: \bibitem[Vidal-Madjar et al.(2004)]{Vetal04} Vidal-Madjar, A., Desert, J.-M., Lecavelier des Etangs, A.,
475: Hebrard, G., Ballester, G. E., Ehrenreich, D., Ferlet, R., McConnell, J. C., Mayor, M., Parkinson, C. D. 2004, \apj, subbmitted
476: \bibitem[Weidenschilling \& Lewis (1973)]{WL73} Weidenschilling, S. J., Lewis, J. S. 1973, Icarus, 20, 465
477: \bibitem[West et al.(1986)]{Wetal86} West, R. A., Strobel, D. F., Tomasko, M. G. 1986, Icarus, 65, 161
478: \bibitem[Wong et al.(2000)]{Wetal00} Wong, A.-S., Lee, A. Y.-T.,
479: Yung, Y. L., Ajello, J. M. 2000, \apjl, 534, L215
480: \bibitem[Wong et al.(2003)]{Wetal03} Wong, A.-S., Yung, Y. L., Friedson, A. J.
481: 2003, Geophys. Res. Lett., 30(8), 1447, doi:10.1029/2002GL016661
482: \bibitem[Yung \& DeMore (1999)]{YD99} Yung, Y. L., DeMore, W. B.
483: 1999, Photochemistry of Planetary Atmospheres (New York: Oxford Uni. Press)
484:
485:
486:
487: \end{thebibliography}
488:
489: \end{document}
490: