Molecules with ALMA at Planet-forming Scales (MAPS) V: CO gas distributions

TL;DR

This study uses high-resolution ALMA observations of CO isotopologues in five protoplanetary disks to analyze gas density distributions, revealing variations, correlations with dust gaps, and implications for planet formation theories.

Contribution

It provides the first detailed CO gas distribution profiles in multiple disks using three independent methods, confirming viscous disk models and exploring planet-disk interaction signatures.

Findings

CO gas distributions vary significantly among disks.

Most disks have lower CO-to-H2 ratios than the ISM.

CO gaps often correlate with dust gaps, but not always.

Abstract

Here we present high resolution (15-24 au) observations of CO isotopologue lines from the Molecules with ALMA on Planet-forming Scales (MAPS) ALMA Large Program. Our analysis employs $^{13}$CO and C$^{18}$O ($J$=2-1), (1-0), and C$^{17}$O (1-0) line observations of five protoplanetary disks. We retrieve CO gas density distributions, using three independent methods: (1) a thermo-chemical modeling framework based on the CO data, the broadband spectral energy distribution, and the mm-continuum emission; (2) an empirical temperature distribution based on optically thick CO lines; and (3) a direct fit to the C$^{17}$O hyperfine lines. Results from these methods generally show excellent agreement. The CO gas column density profiles of the five disks show significant variations in the absolute value and the radial shape. Assuming a gas-to-dust mass ratio of 100, all five disks have a global CO-to-H$_2$ abundance of 10-100 times lower than the ISM ratio. The CO gas distributions between 150-400 au match well with models of viscous disks, supporting the long-standing theory. CO gas gaps appear to be correlated with continuum gap locations, but some deep continuum gaps do not have corresponding CO gaps. The relative depths of CO and dust gaps are generally consistent with predictions of planet-disk interactions, but some CO gaps are 5-10 times shallower than predictions based on dust gaps. This paper is part of the MAPS special issue of the Astrophysical Journal Supplement.