Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The study computes collisional rate coefficients for CS and H2O, indicating their importance in cometary analysis.
Collisional rate coefficients with H_2O as the collisional partner for cometary applications are usually missing from the literature due to the high computational cost of such calculations. One notable example is CS, which is among the dominant sulfur-bearing species observed in comets, whose formation path remains to be elucidated. To allow for the accurate determination of the physical conditions of comets where CS is detected, we conducted a study on the collisional excitation of CS induced by H_2O. The first CS--H_2O potential energy surface (PES) was computed using the symmetry adapted perturbation theory along with the density functional theory method (SAPT-DFT). The scattering calculations were performed using the statistical adiabatic channel model (SACM) approach. The rate coefficients were employed in a non-local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE) excitation model to discuss the impact of the new data on the modeling of CS in cometary comae where H_2O is dominating. The first CS--H_2O rate coefficients were provided for the 5-100,K temperature range, including all CS levels up to CS = 18. It was found that using CS--H_2 rate coefficients or the global cross-section approach to supplement for missing CS--H_2O data are not expected to perform well. Among all approximations, using CO--H_2O rate coefficients -- CO being chemically similar to CS -- is expected to be the most accurate approximation. Computing collisional rate coefficients with H_2O projectiles to address the lack of cometary data is a highly demanding task. In this work we used the SACM approach to compute the CS--H_2O data, opening the way for further calculations for cometary applications. Further testing of the impact of the approximations used to compensate for this absence in the analysis of cometary observations is required to draw strong conclusions about the inaccuracies they may introduce.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Palluet et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: