On the influence of collisional rate coefficients on the water vapour excitation

TL;DR

This study evaluates how different collisional rate coefficients affect water vapor excitation modeling in astrophysical environments, revealing potential inaccuracies in abundance estimates when using certain CRC sets under specific conditions.

Contribution

It provides a detailed comparison of CRC sets for H$_2$O, highlighting the impact on line intensity predictions and abundance estimates in astrophysical models.

Findings

Quantum and QCT CRCs agree well at high densities.

Differences up to a factor of 3 in line intensities at low densities.

Using QCT CRCs can lead to underestimation of water abundance.

Abstract

Water is a key molecule in many astrophysical studies. Its high dipole moment makes this molecule to be subthermally populated under the typical conditions of most astrophysical objects. This motivated the calculation of various sets of collisional rate coefficients (CRC) for H$_2$O (with He or H$_2$) which are necessary to model its rotational excitation and line emission. We performed accurate non--local non--LTE radiative transfer calculations using different sets of CRC in order to predict the line intensities from transitions that involve the lowest energy levels of H$_2$O (E $<$ 900 K). The results obtained from the different CRC sets are then compared using line intensity ratio statistics. For the whole range of physical conditions considered in this work, we obtain that the intensities based on the quantum and QCT CRC are in good agreement. However, at relatively low H$_2$ volume density ($n$(H$_2$) $<$ 10$^7$ cm$^{-3}$) and low water abundance ($\chi$(H$_2$O) $<$ 10$^{-6}$), these physical conditions being relevant to describe most molecular clouds, we find differences in the predicted line intensities of up to a factor of $\sim$ 3 for the bulk of the lines. Most of the recent studies interpreting early Herschel Space Observatory spectra used the QCT CRC. Our results show that although the global conclusions from those studies will not be drastically changed, each case has to be considered individually, since depending on the physical conditions, the use of the QCT CRC may lead to a mis--estimate of the water vapour abundance of up to a factor of $\sim$ 3.