1:
2: %%
3: %%\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
4:
5: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:
6:
7: %\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
8:
9: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
10:
11: \documentclass[preprint,12pt]{aastex}
12:
13: %%\documentclass[preprint2,longabstract]{aastex}
14:
15: \def\etal{{et al.~}}
16: %\shorttitle{Collapsed Cores in Globular Clusters}
17: \shortauthors{Lee et al.}
18:
19: \begin{document}
20:
21: \title{Velocity distribution of collapsing starless cores,
22: L694-2 and L1197}
23:
24: \author{SEOK HO LEE\altaffilmark{1}, YONG-SUN PARK\altaffilmark{1}, JUNGJOO SOHN\altaffilmark{1}, CHANG WON LEE\altaffilmark{2}, AND HYUNG MOK LEE\altaffilmark{1}}
25:
26: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Physics and Astronomy, Seoul
27: National University, Shillim-dong Kwanak-gu, Seoul 151-742, Korea
28: } \altaffiltext{2}{Korea Astronomy and Space Science Institute,
29: 61-1 Hwaam-dong, Yusung-gu, Taejon 305-348, Korea}
30: \begin{abstract}
31: In an attempt to understand the dynamics of collapsing starless cores,
32: we have conducted a detailed investigation of the velocity fields of two
33: collapsing cores, L694-2 and L1197, with high spatial resolution HCN J~=~1-0
34: maps and Monte Carlo radiative transfer calculation.
35: It is found that infall motion is most active in the middle and outer
36: layers outside the central density-flat region, while both the
37: central and outermost parts of the cores are static or exhibit
38: slower motion.
39: Their peak velocities are 0.28~km~s$^{-1}$ for L694-2 and
40: 0.20~km~s$^{-1}$ for L1197, which could not be found in simple
41: models.
42: These velocity fields are roughly consistent with the gravitational
43: collapse models of the isothermal core; however, the velocity
44: gradients inside the peak velocity position are steeper than those
45: of the models.
46: Our results also show that the density distributions are $\sim r^{-2.5}$ and $\sim r^{-1.5}$
47: in the outer part for L694-2 and L1197, respectively. HCN abundance relative to H$_2$ is spatially
48: almost constant in L694-2 with a value of $7 \times 10^{-9}$,
49: while for L1197, it shows a slight inward increase from $1.7
50: \times 10^{-9}$ to $3.5 \times 10^{-9}$.
51: \end{abstract}
52: \keywords{ISM: individual (L694-2, L1197) --- ISM: kinematics and
53: dynamics ---star: formation}
54: \section{Introduction }
55: Starless cores that are on the verge of or undergoing
56: gravitational collapse provide important information on the
57: initial stage of star formation. In order to understand the
58: dynamics of such starless cores, it is necessary to obtain
59: information on at least density, temperature, and velocity
60: distributions. The density and temperature have been determined by
61: submillimeter/NIR and NH$_3$ observation with a certain degree of
62: accuracy \citep{evans, kandori, tafalla2004}.
63:
64: However, the velocity field has not yet been elucidated. The
65: observations of starless cores in the molecular lines of CS,
66: $\rm{DCO^{+}}$, and $\rm{N_{2}H^{+}}$
67: \citep{surveya,surveyb,surveyc} show that the inward motion is
68: extended to $0.2 - 0.3$ pc with a speed of
69: $0.05-0.09$~km~s$^{-1}$, which is derived using a two-layer model
70: \citep{myersetal}.
71: The analysis of the CS J~=~3-2 and J~=~2-1 lines with the same model for several
72: cores such as L183, L1521F, L1689B, L1544, and L694-2, suggests
73: that the infall speed appears to increase toward the center
74: \citep{surveyc}. Since the two layer model is rather simple, the
75: derived velocity may be an average value along the line of sight
76: and its variation with depth should be considered with caution.
77: Moreover, it should be noted that in general, CS is significantly
78: depleted in the central regions of starless cores
79: \citep{tafalla2002, tafalla2004}. On the other hands, by applying
80: an improved version of the two layer model \citep{devries} to the
81: interferometric observations in $\rm{N_{2}H^{+}}$,
82: \citet{williams} found that the infall velocity increases toward
83: the emission peak for L694-2 and L1544 .
84: This transition might trace the deep central
85: region of the core because the emission of $\rm{N_{2}H^{+}}$
86: primarily comes from the central part due to its low optical depth
87: and centrally condensed matter distribution \citep{tafalla2006}.
88: Therefore, it is highly likely that these independent observations
89: do not trace the entire range of the velocity fields in the
90: collapsing cores. Similar shortcomings are evident in
91: \citet{tafalla2002}, \citet{keto}, and \citet{swift}, although
92: they have assumed that the infall speed varies monotonically with
93: the radial distance and have performed more sophisticated
94: radiative transfer calculations.
95:
96: In order to derive a reliable velocity field, by overcoming these problems,
97: we selected HCN J~=~1-0 hyperfine lines as a probe and observed
98: several candidates of collapsing cores.
99: Then, we performed radiative transfer calculations by considering different types of velocity fields.
100: An advantage of using the HCN J~=~1-0 lines is that three hyperfine
101: lines are well separated and they cover a wide range (a factor of
102: 5) of the optical depth. In addition, a direct comparison between
103: the integrated intensity map of HCN and that of the
104: $\rm{N_{2}H^{+}}$
105: reveals that HCN is not depleted significantly \citep{sohn}.
106: For radiative transfer analyses, we used the one-dimensional Monte Carlo
107: code by considering the line overlap effect due to the hyperfine
108: splitting of HCN energy levels \citep{bernes, gonzalez, park}.
109: Therefore, the capability of this code is almost the same as that of code used by
110: \citet{tafalla2002}, \citet{keto}, and \citet{swift}.
111: The only difference is that we explored more complicated
112: velocity fields, by relaxing the condition of the monotonic
113: increase or decrease of velocity field, which is an implicit
114: assumption of the previous studies.
115:
116: \section{Data}
117: We analyzed two round-shaped collapsing starless cores, L694-2 and L1197, located at
118: $\alpha_{2000}=19^h41^m04.^s5$,
119: $\delta_{2000}=10^{\circ}57'02.''0$ and $\alpha_{2000}=
120: 22^h37^m02.^s3$, $\delta_{2000}=58^{\circ}57'20.''6$,
121: respectively. The observations were performed in September 2003 by
122: using the IRAM 30 m at a spacing of 11$''$ \citep{sohn}.
123: The beam size of the telescope was $\rm{FWHM}=28''$ for the HCN J~=~1-0 and the
124: velocity resolution of the backend was 0.033~km~s$^{-1}$. Data
125: were converted to the T$_{mb}$ scale using a main beam efficiency
126: of 0.82. We set the frequency of the three HCN J~=~1-0 hyperfine
127: lines according to the Cologne Database for Molecular Spectroscopy
128: \citep{muller} as follows: 88.6304157~GHz for F~=~0-1,
129: 88.6318473~GHz for F~=~2-1, and 88.6339360~GHz for F~=~1-1.
130:
131: In order to perform a comparison
132: with the one-dimensional radiative transfer calculations, we
133: assumed that two cores are spherically symmetric. It is justified
134: by the spherically symmetric density distribution from the
135: observation of dust extinction and emission for L694-2
136: \citep{harveya, harveyb}. The HCN J~=~1-0 line profiles are
137: distributed concentrically and they all exhibit blue asymmetry for
138: L694-2. This is the case for L1197 except for red asymmetry in
139: south-west region occupying only $\le$ 10\% of the observed area,
140: which has a negligible contribution to the analysis.
141: The observations will be described in detail in a separate paper
142: (Sohn \etal, in preparation). The observed spectra were
143: azimuthally averaged at concentric radial annuli with a step of
144: 10$''$. We set the centers of the cores to the peak intensity
145: positions of $\rm{N_{2}H^{+}}$, which are (0$''$, 0$''$) for
146: L694-2 and (0$''$, 11$''$) for L1197 relative to the map centers
147: mentioned above.
148: Since the spectra were at rectangular grid points, they were weighted by
149: a factor of $exp(-(d/14'')^{2})$, where $d$ is the distance in
150: arcseconds between the radial distance of the grid point and the
151: specified radius and 14$''$ is one half width of telescope beam.
152: The resulting spectra are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig1} and will be
153: used as templates for the comparison with synthesized line
154: profiles.
155:
156: \section{Model of core}
157: We synthesized line profiles by using the Monte Carlo radiative
158: transfer model and compared them with the observed ones in order
159: to derive the model parameters that best explain the observations.
160: We adopted distances of 250pc and 400 pc to L694-2 and L1197, respectively \citep{surveyb}.
161: Velocities relative to the local standard of rest were selected as
162: 9.61~km~s$^{-1}$ and $-3.16$~km~s$^{-1}$ for L694-2 and L1197,
163: respectively.
164: The model cores with a radius of 0.15 pc for both L694-2 and L1197 were composed of 30
165: concentric shells at regular intervals.
166: Additionally, these cores were surrounded by an envelope with an adjustable
167: radius (see below). We used $10^6$ model photons for the Monte
168: Carlo code.
169:
170: The kinetic temperature was assumed to be spatially
171: constant at 10K, on the basis of the values derived for L1498 and
172: L1517B \citep{tafalla2004}.
173: For the density distribution, we used the following form adopted by
174: \citet{tafalla2004},
175: \begin{eqnarray} \label{model} n(r)=
176: {n_{c}\over 1+(r/r_{o})^{\alpha}} \ \ ,
177: \end{eqnarray}
178: where $n_{c}$ is the central density, $r_{o}$ is the radius of the
179: inner flat region, and $\alpha$ is the asymptotic power index.
180: In dynamic models, $r_{o}$ decreases with an increase in the
181: central density \citep{foster, ciolek}.
182: To consider this effect, we defined $r_o$ such that it depended on $n_c$,
183: \begin{eqnarray}
184: \label{model1} r_{o}\equiv2.25R_{o} \ \ ,\\
185: R_{o}=a/\sqrt{4\pi G \mu m_{H} n_{c}} \ \ ,
186: \end{eqnarray}
187: where $R_{o}$ is the scale radius of the Bonnor-Ebert sphere, $a$
188: is the sound speed, $\mu$ (= 2.33) is the mean molecular weight,
189: and $m_{H}$ is the hydrogen mass.
190: If $\alpha$ is 2.5 in equation (\ref{model}), it represents approximately
191: the density distribution of the Bonnor-Ebert sphere
192: \citep{tafalla2004}. In our model, we tested two cases of sound
193: speed, $a$ = 0.2 and 0.3~km~s$^{-1}$, and finally adopted the
194: latter.
195:
196: Since the integrated intensity map of the thinnest HCN J~=~1-0, F~=~0-1 line
197: is similar to that of the N$_2$H$^+$~J~=~1-0 line, it appears that
198: HCN is not significantly depleted for these two cores at least
199: \citep{sohn}.
200: In order to take into account any minor depletion or enhancement of HCN, we assumed
201: the HCN abundance variation of $X(r)$~$=$~$X_{o}[n(r)/n_o]^\beta$,
202: where $\beta$ is the power index and $n_o$ and $X_o$ are the
203: density and HCN abundance relative to H$_2$ near the boundary,
204: respectively. $n_o$ were fixed lastly as $5 \times 10^3$ cm$^{-3}$
205: for L694-2 and $1 \times 10^4$ cm$^{-3}$ for L1197, respectively.
206:
207: The line profiles are most sensitive to the infall velocity field.
208: We characterized the velocity field as a $\Lambda$-shaped field.
209: (The reason why we adopted this shape will be discussed in next
210: section.) The innermost region within $R_i$ is static, and the
211: infall velocity increases with a linear function of the radial
212: distance toward the peak velocity position ($R_{m}$) with a
213: maximum magnitude of $V_{m}$, and then linearly decreases to the
214: outermost layer. We fixed the size of the outermost layer and its
215: velocity to $0.13 {\rm pc} \leq r \leq 0.15 {\rm pc}$ and a
216: constant, respectively. In fact, the size of the outermost layer
217: is determined on the basis of the first several trials. The
218: velocity of the outermost layer can be directly derived from the
219: line profile. The fitting procedure will be described in detail in
220: next section.
221:
222: In summary, we have seven free parameters in total : $n_c$ and
223: $\alpha$ for density, $X_o$ and $\beta$ for abundance, and $R_i$,
224: $R_m$, and $V_m$ for velocity. We made reference to the values of
225: previous studies for density and abundance \citep{harveya,
226: harveyb, gonzalez}.
227:
228: Besides these, a few auxiliary parameters were necessary to fit
229: the line profiles. The e-folding widths of the absorption
230: coefficient profile in the inner static region were specified as
231: 0.15~km~s$^{-1}$ and 0.13~km~s$^{-1}$ for L694-2 and L1197,
232: respectively; they are larger than the pure thermal width by a
233: factor of $\sim 2$. In the other layers, these widths were
234: automatically adjusted such that the line widths of the model
235: spectra closely resembled the observed ones.
236: To explain the hyperfine anomalies of HCN, an envelope with larger
237: microturbulence width and lower density must be introduced \citep
238: {gonzalez}.
239: The diffuse and turbulent molecular clouds surrounding the cores traced by CO
240: may be considered as the envelope \citep{tafalla2006}.
241: We selected the microturbulence width of 0.5 km~s$^{-1}$ and the abundance of
242: $5\times10^{-9}$, which were the same for both cores.
243: The density was set to $10^3$~cm$^{-3}$ for L694-2 and $3 \times10^3$~cm$^{-3}$
244: for L1197.
245: Then, we varied the size of the envelope to adjust the relative intensity ratio
246: among the hyperfine lines. It is not necessary for the envelope
247: parameters to be unique since various combinations of the density,
248: abundance, and size are acceptable if the optical depth is almost
249: the same and the excitation temperature is sufficiently low and
250: close to 2.7~K. It should be noted that the envelope is introduced
251: to account for only the intensity ratio among the hyperfine lines.
252:
253:
254:
255: The line profiles produced by this method were convolved with the
256: telescope beam for a direct comparison with the observations. The
257: difference between the model line profile and the observed one was
258: evaluated by $\chi^{2}$ \citep {zhou}. We considered all channels
259: of three hyperfine transitions on 5 positions, in the velocity
260: range from $-0.7$~km~s$^{-1}$ to $0.7$~km~s$^{-1}$.
261:
262: \section{Results}
263:
264:
265:
266: In the first phase, we adjusted the density distribution and
267: constant HCN abundance without infall motion so that the
268: intensities of F~=~0-1 at all locations are similar to those
269: observed. Further, we attempted to fit the line profiles with the
270: infall velocity fields of the constant or monotonically
271: increasing/decreasing function of the radius and found that they
272: cannot reproduce the observed spectra. The infall velocities at
273: every grid points were then varied by trial and error. It was
274: immediately evident that the infall motion is dominant in the
275: middle and outer layers and other parts of the cores are rather
276: static or exhibit a small amount of motion. Therefore, we
277: approximated the velocity field with the $\Lambda$-shaped one.
278:
279: The $\Lambda$-shaped velocity field could be qualitatively
280: understood by inspecting the characteristic features of the
281: observed line profiles shown in Fig.~\ref{fig1} as follows. On the
282: basis of the fact that the position of the self-absorption dip in
283: the thickest F~=~2-1 line indicates the velocity at the outermost
284: part, we can estimate the infall velocity in that region. These
285: infall velocities for L694-2 and L1197 are $\approx 0.0$ and
286: $\approx 0.1$~km~s$^{-1}$, respectively. On the other hand, the
287: velocity in a region close to the central part can be derived from
288: the line width of an optically thin N$_2$H$^+$ line, since it is
289: not depleted significantly and, therefore, its emission mainly
290: originates from the central part in which the density is the
291: highest. From \citet{surveya}, the FWHM of L694-2 and L1197 are
292: found to be 0.27~km~s$^{-1}$ and 0.28~km~s$^{-1}$, respectively.
293: These values can be used to derive the contribution of non-thermal
294: motion after removing the thermal width.
295: If this motion is attributed to the systematic inward motion, the maximum
296: infall velocity will be 0.12~km~s$^{-1}$ for both L694-2 and
297: L1197. Since cores with a pure thermal line width are extremely
298: rare, the systematic motion will be even smaller.
299: The line shape also provides information on the velocity field in the middle layer.
300: The increasing rate of the brightness from the absorption dip to red part is considerably slower
301: than to blue part, particularly for L694-2, thereby resulting in a
302: weaker red peak.
303: This suggests that the region of $\tau_{\nu}=1$ remains close to the
304: surface layer in the red part, implying that the infall velocity
305: increases steeply toward the deeper layer.
306: Then, it must decrease again toward the center to satisfy the constraints
307: of the N$_2$H$^+$ lines.
308:
309: In the second phase, in order to derive the velocity field in a more
310: systematic manner, we reduced the number of parameters describing
311: the velocity field to three, $R_i$, $R_m$, and $V_{m}$ as
312: mentioned in the previous section.
313: First, we adjusted the parameters of the velocity field, while fixing the other density and
314: abundance parameters. Thereafter, the density parameters were
315: modified followed by the abundance parameters, while the other
316: parameters were unchanged. We repeated this process a few times.
317:
318:
319: The spectra of the best fit models are displayed in
320: Fig.~\ref{fig1}, where one can note that almost all the details
321: are reproduced, particularly for L694-2. The density and velocity
322: distribution of the models are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig2}. The
323: minimum $\chi^2$'s are estimated to be 2.7 and 9.2 for L694-2 and
324: L1197, respectively. The distributions of the $\chi^2$ around the
325: best fit model are displayed in Fig.~\ref{fig3} and
326: Fig.~\ref{fig4}. As expected, the abundance parameters are not
327: completely independent, since both are related to the column
328: density of HCN. There seems to be (anti-)correlations among the
329: velocity parameters, too.
330:
331:
332: %that the mean radius weighted by infall velocity is roughly kept
333: %constant.
334:
335: To summarize, the infall velocity begins to increase from 0 near
336: the $R_i= 0.035$ pc for both the cores, and reaches the maximum
337: infall velocity of $V_{m}= 0.28$~km~s$^{-1}$ at $R_m = 0.085$~pc
338: for L694-2 and $V_{m}= 0.20$~km~s$^{-1}$ at $R_m = 0.10$~pc for
339: L1197 as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig2}. The central density and power
340: index of L694-2 are around $n_c=1.75 \times 10^5$~cm$^{-3}$ and
341: $\alpha=2.5$, while those of L1197 are $n_c=1.75 \times 10^5 $~
342: cm$^{-3}$ and $\alpha=1.5$, respectively.
343: Our result of L694-2 is similar to that derived from the near-infrared extinction and
344: dust emission maps \citep{harveya,harveyb}. The abundance is uniform with $7\times 10^{-9}$ for
345: L694-2 ($\beta \approx 0.0$), while it increases slightly toward
346: the center for L1197 ($\beta \approx 0.3$) from $1.7 \times
347: 10^{-9}$ to $3.5 \times 10^{-9}$.
348:
349:
350: \section{Discussion}
351: %\vskip 10mm
352: %uniqueness
353: Since we optimized several parameters cyclically, it is uncertain whether they are
354: a set of best fit parameters.
355: This may be true because we did not explore sufficient parameter spaces.
356: However, since our optimization is based on the qualitative understanding
357: of line profile formation, it is unlikely that a quite different
358: solution will exists.
359: The degree of coincidence of the synthesized and the observed line profiles also
360: supports this argument, as shown in
361: Fig.~\ref{fig1}.
362: Although a new solution may be derived, but characteristic features such
363: as the $\Lambda$-shaped velocity field will remain unchanged.
364:
365: % the reason for our success
366: The fact that the velocity distribution is concentrated in the middle
367: and outer layers is attributed to the selection of HCN hyperfine lines that can
368: probe a wide range of core interiors and to the relaxation of the condition of a
369: constant or monotonic decrease/increase in the velocity field.
370: % extended inward motion
371: Our model naturally explains the ``extended inward motion'' observed for several
372: starless cores since the infall motion is dominant in the middle
373: and outer layers.
374: The size of the infalling layer is $\approx 2 R_m \sim 0.2$ pc, which is
375: consistent with the observations \citep{myers}.
376: The extended inward motion probed by CS toward L1544 and L1551 appears to be
377: exceptional in that it extends over very wide area.
378: This may be due to other types of motion \citep{swift}.
379:
380: The velocity field that we found does not contradict the observation of
381: \citet{williams}, in which increasing inward motion toward the
382: center in the central 30$''$ region of L694-2 is derived. For
383: this, they used the optically thin N$_2$H$^+$ line to probe the
384: infall velocity of $<~ 0.1$~ km~s$^{-1}$ and therefore
385: the more dominant motion in the middle and outer layers has been missed.
386: In our case, we assumed that the velocity in the central region is zero in order to reduce the
387: number of parameters. In fact, we have tested several sets of models whose velocity fields
388: have non-zero values in the deeper part, and have found that the velocity of $<0.1$~ km~s$^{-1}$ is acceptable.
389:
390: The distribution of the infall motion of our model is similar to
391: that of the ambipolar diffusion model and isothermal core collapse
392: model \citep{ciolek, foster} in the sense that the models also
393: have the $\Lambda$-shaped velocity field and their infall velocity
394: peaks lie just outside the central density-flat region. However,
395: the velocity gradient of our model inside the velocity peak
396: position is steeper than that predicted by the dynamic models. We
397: can observe such a sudden decrease in the infall motion in the
398: deeper layer in the so-called first collapse phase of the model
399: used in \citet{masunaga}. However, this occurs when the central
400: part is very dense and opaque at an evolutionary stage later than
401: that of our sample. Some mechanisms resisting against gravity such
402: as rotation may work; however, they are easily excluded since
403: rotation is very slow \citep{williams}. An oscillation of starless
404: cores around equilibrium may be able to explain this, as shown in
405: \citet{ketofield}, where pressure wave reflected from center
406: combined with inward motion due to perturbation from outside
407: results in the steep velocity gradient in the middle. However the
408: magnitude of the motion is much less than sound speed. In the
409: case of L694-2 and L1197, the inward motion is similar to or
410: greater than the sound speed, suggesting that they are undergoing
411: dynamical collapse. The mechanism of a steeper pressure gradient
412: should be sought, but it is inappropriate to describe it in
413: greater detail at this stage.
414:
415: The motion of the ambipolar diffusion model \citep{ciolek} is very
416: slow and therefore it cannot be used to explain the velocity field
417: derived in this study. This is because the model of \citet{ciolek}
418: is developed for L1544 when the infall velocity of this core was
419: known to be less than 0.1 km s$^{-1}$. If the magnetic field is
420: reduced to explain the infall motion of the cores with ambipolar
421: diffusion, the model will be supercritical and reduced to the
422: usual isothermal collapse model.
423:
424:
425:
426:
427: \section{Conclusion}
428: By combining high spatial resolution HCN observation toward L694-2
429: and L1197 with the Monte Carlo radiative transfer calculation, we
430: have found that the infall velocity is most dominant in the middle
431: and outer layers of the cores and the infall velocity can be as
432: large as 0.3~km~s$^{-1}$. The most important feature of our study
433: is that the velocity field is determined with such accuracy and
434: fidelity that it is possible to compare dynamics and observations
435: for the first time. An extensive investigation of the velocity
436: distribution in collapsing starless cores is in progress (Sohn et
437: al., in preparation). The result will clarify the dynamic status
438: of starless cores in greater detail.
439:
440:
441: \acknowledgements
442:
443: This study was supported by the Ministry of Science and
444: Technology, Korea, under the grant R14-2005-058-01002-0. S.H.L.
445: used the PC cluster facility of Korea Astronomy and Space Science
446: Institute. Institute. C.W.L acknowledges support by KOSEF
447: R01-2003-000-10513-0 program.
448:
449:
450: \begin{thebibliography}{}
451:
452: \bibitem [Bernes (1979)] {bernes} Bernes, C., 1979, A\&A, 73, 67
453:
454: \bibitem[Ciolek \& Basu (2000)]{ciolek}
455: Ciolek, G.E., Basu, S., 2000, ApJ, 529, 925
456:
457: \bibitem[De Vries \& Myers (2005)]{devries}
458: De Vries, C.H., Myers, P.C., 2005, ApJ, 620,800
459:
460: \bibitem[Evans \etal (2001)]{evans}
461: Evans, N.J.,II., Rawlings, J.M.C., Shirley, Y.L., Mundy, L.G.,
462: 2001, ApJ, 557, 193
463:
464: \bibitem[Foster \& Chevaler (1993)]{foster}
465: Foster, P.N., Chevalier, R.A., 1993, ApJ, 416, 303
466:
467: \bibitem[Gonz\'{a}lez-Alfonso \& Cernicharo (1993)]{gonzalez}
468: Gonz\'{a} lez-Alfonso, E., Cernicharo, J., 1993, A\&A, 279, 506
469:
470: \bibitem[Harvey \etal (2003a)]{harveya}
471: Harvey, D.W.A., Wilner, D.J., Myers, P.C., Tafalla, M., 2003a,
472: ApJ, 597, 424
473:
474: \bibitem[Harvey \etal (2003b)]{harveyb}
475: Harvey, D.W.A., Wilner, D.J., Lada, C.J., Myers, P.C., Alves,
476: J.F., 2003b, ApJ, 598, 1112
477:
478: \bibitem[Kandori \etal (2005)]{kandori}
479: Kandori, R., \etal, 2005, AJ, 130, 2166
480:
481: \bibitem[Keto \& Field (2005)]{ketofield}
482: Keto, E., Field, G., 2005, ApJ, 635, 1151
483:
484:
485: \bibitem[Keto \etal (2004)]{keto}
486: Keto, E., Rybicki, G.B., Bergin, A., Plume, R., 2004, ApJ, 613,
487: 355
488:
489: \bibitem[Lee \etal (1999)]{surveya}
490: Lee, C.W., Myers, P.C., Tafalla, M., 1999, ApJ, 526, 788
491:
492: \bibitem[Lee \etal (2001)]{surveyb}
493: Lee, C.W., Myers, P.C., Tafalla, M., 2001, ApJS, 136, 703
494:
495: \bibitem[Lee \etal (2004)]{surveyc}
496: Lee, C.W., Myers, P.C., Plume, R., 2004, ApJS, 153, 523
497:
498: \bibitem[Masunaga \etal (1998)]{masunaga}
499: Masunaga, H., Miyama, S.M., Inutsuka, S., 1998, ApJ, 495, 346
500:
501: \bibitem[M$\rm{\ddot{u}}$ller \etal (2005)] {muller}
502: M$\rm{\ddot{u}}$ller, H.S.P., Schl$\rm{\ddot{o}}$der, F., Stutzki,
503: J., Winnevisser, G., 2005, J.Mol.Struct. 742, 215
504:
505: \bibitem[Myers (2005)]{myers}
506: Myers, P.C., 2005, ApJ, 623, 280
507:
508: \bibitem[Myers \etal (1996)]{myersetal}
509: Myers, P.C., Mardones, D., Tafalla, M., Williams, J.P., Wilner,
510: D.J., 1996, ApJL, 465, 133
511:
512: \bibitem[Park \etal (1999)] {park}
513: Park, Y.-S., Kim, J., Minh, Y. C., 1999, ApJ, 520, 223
514:
515: \bibitem[Sohn \etal (2004)]{sohn}
516: Sohn, J., Lee, C.W., Lee, H.M., Park, Y.-S. Myers, P.C., Lee, Y.,
517: Tafalla, M., 2004, JKAS, 37, 261
518:
519: \bibitem[Swift \etal (2006)]{swift}
520: Swift, J., Welch, W., Francesco, J.D., Stojimirov\'ic, I., 2006,
521: ApJ, 637, 392
522:
523: \bibitem[Tafalla \etal (2002)]{tafalla2002}
524: Tafalla, M., Myers, P.C., Caselli, P., Walmsley, C.M., Comito, C.,
525: 2002, ApJ, 569, 815
526:
527: \bibitem[Tafalla \etal (2004)]{tafalla2004}
528: Tafalla, M., Myers, P.C., Caselli, P., Walmsley, C.M., 2004,
529: A\&A, 416, 191
530:
531: \bibitem[Tafalla \etal (2006)]{tafalla2006}
532: Tafalla, M., Santiango-Gar\'ia, J., Myerys, P.C., Caselli, P.,
533: Walmsley, C.M., Crapsi, A., 2006, A\&A, 455, 577
534: \bibitem[Ward-Thompson \etal (1994)]{dust1}
535: Ward-Thompson, D., Scott, P.F., Hills, R.E., Andr\'e, P.,
536: 1994, MNRAS, 268, 276
537:
538: \bibitem[Williams \etal (2006)]{williams}
539: Williams, J. P., Lee, C.W., Myers, P.C., 2006, ApJ, 636, 952
540: \bibitem[Zhou \etal (1993)] {zhou}
541: Zhou, S., Evans, N.J.II., K$\rm{\ddot{o}}$mpc, C., Walmsley,
542: C.M., 1993, ApJ, 404, 232
543:
544: \end{thebibliography}
545:
546: \clearpage
547: \begin{figure}
548: \epsscale{1.1} \plottwo{f1a.eps}{f1b.eps}
549: \begin{center}
550: \caption{The comparison of spectra from the best fit model (line)
551: and those from the observation (histogram) for L694-2 (left) and
552: L1197 (right) as a function of projected radial distance, which is
553: noted in the rightmost panels.
554: Observed spectra are shifted so that their LSR velocity is
555: zero. \label{fig1}}
556: \end{center}
557: \end{figure}
558:
559: \begin{figure}
560: \epsscale{1.1} \plottwo{f2a.eps}{f2b.eps}
561: \begin{center}
562: \caption{The density and infall velocity distributions of the best
563: fit model for L694-2 (left) and L1197 (right). \label{fig2}}
564: \end{center}
565: \end{figure}
566:
567: \begin{figure}
568: \epsscale{1.0} \plotone{f3.eps}
569: \begin{center}
570: \caption{Distribution of $\chi^2$ around the best fit solution
571: with $\chi^2$ of 2.7 as a function of model parameters for L694-2
572: (see text for the best fit model parameters). Panels a, b, and c
573: are about velocity field, and d and e are about density and
574: abundance distribution, respectively.
575: \label{fig3}}
576: \end{center}
577: \end{figure}
578:
579: \begin{figure}
580: \epsscale{1.0}
581: \plotone{f4.eps}
582: \begin{center}
583: \caption{Distribution of $\chi^2$ around the best fit solution
584: with $\chi^2$ of 9.2 as a function of model parameters for L1197.
585: Others are the same as in Fig.~\ref{fig3}. \label{fig4}}
586: \end{center}
587: \end{figure}
588:
589:
590:
591: \end{document}
592: