Cited by 8Astrophysics and Cosmic PhenomenaAstrophysical Phenomena and ObservationsSolar and Space Plasma Dynamics

Discovery of non-equilibrium ionization plasma associated with the North Polar Spur and Loop I

Open access
Yamamoto, Marino, Kataoka, Jun, Sofue, Yoshiaki·2022·Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society

Abstract

We investigated the detailed plasma condition of the North Polar Spur (NPS)/Loop I using archival Suzaku data. In previous research, collisional ionization equilibrium (CIE) have been assumed for X-ray plasma state, but we also assume non-equilibrium ionization (NEI) to check the plasma condition in more detail. We found that most of the plasma in the NPS/Loop I favors the state of NEI, and has the density-weighted ionization timescale of net ∼ 1011–12 s cm−3 and the electron number density ne ∼ a few × 10−3 cm−3. The plasma shock age, t, or the time elapsed after the shock front passed through the plasma, is estimated to be on the order of a few $\rm {Myr}$ for the NPS/Loop I, which puts a strict lower limit to the age of the whole NPS/Loop I structure. We found that NEI results in significantly higher temperature and lower emission measure than those currently derived under CIE assumption. The electron temperature under NEI is estimated to be as high as 0.5 keV toward the brightest X-ray NPS ridge at Δθ = −20○, which decreases to 0.3 keV at −10○, and again increases to ∼0.6 keV towards the outer edge of Loop I at Δθ ∼ 0○, about twice the currently estimated temperatures. Here, Δθ is the angular distance from the outer edge of Loop I. We discuss the implication of introducing NEI for the research in plasma states in astrophysical phenomena.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/mnras/stac577

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Wind-driven bubbles with power L_wind ∼10^42 erg/s are also consistent with the estimated non-equilibrium temperature (∼0.7 keV) from the Suzaku telescope.

    “More recently, Fujita (2023) showed that wind-driven bubbles with power, L wind ∼ 10 42 erg s -1 ) are also consistent with the estimated non-equilibrium temperature ( ∼ 0 . 7 keV) from the Suzaku telescope (Yamamoto et al. 2022).”

    From The Fermi/eROSITA bubbles: a look into the nuclear outflow from the Milky Way (2024) · cites this paper as Yamamoto et al. 2022

    Yamamoto et al. use Suzaku data and report non-equilibrium plasma temperatures reaching approximately 0.6 keV near the outer edge of Loop I (Section 3.2, p. 4), rather than the cited estimate of approximately 0.7 keV. The wind-driven bubble power and consistency result are attributed in the citing sentence to Fujita (2023), not to Yamamoto et al. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Yamamoto et al. found that the Suzaku spectra of the NPS are consistent with a temperature of 0.5-0.6 keV and contain signatures of non-equilibrium ionization.

    “Interestingly, Yamamoto et al. (2022) find that the Suzaku spectra of the NPS are consistent with a temperature of 0 . 5 -0 . 6 keV and that the spectra contain signatures of non-equilibrium ionization.”

    From The Fermi/eROSITA bubbles: a look into the nuclear outflow from the Milky Way (2024) · cites this paper as Yamamoto et al. 2022

  • Further analysis of Suzaku data in that region indicates the presence of a hot (about 0.7 keV) component.

    “Further analysis of Suzaku data in this region indicates the presence of a hot ( ≃ 0 . 7 keV) component, similar to the findings by Yamamoto et al. (2022) in that region.”

    From The Fermi/eROSITA bubbles: a look into the nuclear outflow from the Milky Way (2024) · cites this paper as Yamamoto et al. 2022

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. 2021, arXiv e-prints, p. arXiv:2106.14267 · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yamamoto, M., Kataoka, J., & Sofue, Y.
Affiliations
  • Waseda University (JP)
  • The University of Tokyo (JP)
Corresponding author
Yamamoto, Marino
Venue
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society
Published
2022-03-04
Volume
512
Issue
2
Pages
2034-2043
ISSN
  • 0035-8711 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2966
OpenAlex
W4214870434
Cited by
8
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1
FWCI
0.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • JST
  • ERATO (JPMJER2102)
  • JSPS (JP20K20923)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Nuclear and High Energy Physics › Astrophysics and Cosmic Phenomena
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Astrophysical Phenomena and Observations
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Solar and Space Plasma Dynamics
Keywords
North Polar Spur, Loop I, non-equilibrium ionization, collisional ionization equilibrium, electron density, electron temperature, emission measure, Suzaku

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review