SOFIA/GREAT observations of LMC-N 11: Does [C ii] trace regions with a large H 2 fraction?

SOFIA/GREAT observations of LMC-N 11: Does [C ii] trace regions with a large H 2 fraction? Vianney Lebouteiller Laboratoire AIM - CEA, Saclay, France Main collaborators: F. Galliano, S. Madden, M. Chevance, F. Polles, M.-Y. Lee (CEA), D. Cormier (ZAH), A. Hugues (OMP), M. Requeña-Torres (STScI) Vianney Lebouteiller (AIM/CEA) SOFIA the Local Truth 2016 1 / 24

Background Motivations Motivations What diagnostics can [C ii] 157 µm hold? Important cooling line, carries 0.1 5% of L FIR SFR tracer (e.g., de Looze+ 2014) C ii* also used in DLAs (Wolfe+ 2003) Diagnostic for physical conditions in PDR models ([C ii], [O i] 63, 145 µm, L FIR ) CO-dark molecular gas tracer (Madden+ 1997; Wolfire+ 2010) Routinely detected at high-z Recent detections: e.g., Aravena+ 2016; Bañados+ 2015; Pentericci+ 2016; Bradac+ 2016 Fig.: z > 6 ALMA [C ii] candidates with no optical counterparts in the Hubble-UDF; (Aravena+ 2016) Some surprising non-detections (e.g., Maiolino+ 2015; Carilli+) AGN, low metallicity, significant absorption? Vianney Lebouteiller (AIM/CEA) SOFIA the Local Truth 2016 2 / 24

Background Motivations Motivations What diagnostics can [C ii] 157 µm hold? Important cooling line, carries 0.1 5% of L FIR SFR tracer (e.g., de Looze+ 2014) C ii* also used in DLAs (Wolfe+ 2003) Diagnostic for physical conditions in PDR models ([C ii], [O i] 63, 145 µm, L FIR ) CO-dark molecular gas tracer (Madden+ 1997; Wolfire+ 2010) What is the origin of [C ii]? CNM, WNM, PDR interfaces with molecular clouds, WIM Metal-poor ISM? Low dust abundance (increased PDR clumpiness, lower average A V ) Previous studies Milky Way (Velusamy+ 2010; Piñeda+ 2012, 2015), M 17-SW (Pérez-Beaupuits+ 2015), NGC 4214 (Fahrion+ 2016), LMC-N 159 (Okada+ 2015), SMC H ii regions (Requeña-Torres+ 2016) [C ii] traces significant CO-dark gas in star-forming regions (especially at low metallicity) There might be significant [C ii] not associated with the dense star-forming material Scales and metallicity effects: star-forming regions in Magellanic Clouds Vianney Lebouteiller (AIM/CEA) SOFIA the Local Truth 2016 2 / 24

Background LMC-N 11 LMC-N 11 LMC 1/2 Z Range of spatial scales N 11 Second largest H ii region after 30 Dor ( 120 pc) At least 3 stellar generations N 11 Fig.: LMC (R: Hα, G: MAGMA, B: H i 21 cm). Fig.: N 11 (R: Hα, G: IRAC4 (PAH), B: IRAC1 (stars)). Vianney Lebouteiller (AIM/CEA) SOFIA the Local Truth 2016 3 / 24

Observations SOFIA/GREAT Rich dataset & wide range of environments SOFIA/GREAT: [C ii] 157 µm and [N ii] 205 µm 12 pointings previously identified as CO bright cores (MAGMA), [C ii] bright spots (PACS) PDRs, quiescent CO cloud, ultracompact H ii region, stellar cluster N11C N11A N11B 50 pc N11D #7 #8 #9 #10 #11 #12 N11I #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 Fig.: N 11 (R: Hα, G: IRAC4 (PAH), B: IRAC1 (stars)). -20-10 0 10 20 Fig.: [C ii] spectra observed with GREAT. & Herschel, Spitzer, MOPRA/MAGMA, ALMA, H i 21 cm ATCA+Parkes, VLT/GIRAFFE... Vianney Lebouteiller (AIM/CEA) SOFIA the Local Truth 2016 4 / 24

Observations Some comparisons 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 ALMA MAGMA -0.2-30 -20-10 0 10 20 30 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 ALMA MAGMA -0.2-30 -20-10 0 10 20 30 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 ALMA MAGMA -0.2-30 -20-10 0 10 20 30 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 ALMA MAGMA -0.2-30 -20-10 0 10 20 30 Some comparisons Herschel/PACS [C ii] fluxes lower by 1.5 on average (but point-source vs. extended-source flux calibration) 10.0 #1 #4 N11 A & B #2 #7 #6 #8 #9 N11 C & D #10 #11 N11 I [CII] PACS/GREAT 1.0 #3 #5 Fig.: PACS (R: [C ii], G: [O i], B: [O iii] 88 µm) &. 0.1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 [x10-15 W m - 2] Fig.: Comparison of GREAT and PACS [C ii] fluxes. ALMA observation of N 11B (PI Lebouteiller) MOPRA/MAGMA ALMA #2 - N11 B PDR #3 - N11 B UCHIIR #4 - N11 B CO #5 - N11 B HII 10 pc Fig.: MOPRA/MAGMA and ALMA in N 11B. Fig.: MOPRA/MAGMA and ALMA profiles. Vianney Lebouteiller (AIM/CEA) SOFIA the Local Truth 2016 5 / 24

Profiles Profiles #2 - N11 B PDR #3 - N11 B UCHIIR #4 - N11 B CO #5 - N11 B HII #6 - N11 C CII Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha [NeIII] [NeIII] [NeIII] [NeIII] [NeIII] [NII] GREAT [NII] GREAT [NII] GREAT [NII] GREAT [NII] GREAT ALMA ALMA ALMA ALMA CO: usually a single component FWHM 3 8 km s 1 [C ii]: more structure (Total) FWHM 4 10 km s 1 H i: even more structure (Total) FWHM 16 40 km s 1 Hα and [Ne iii] λ3868: 15 km s 1 resolution, kinematic (non-thermal) width 15 25 km s 1. Vianney Lebouteiller (AIM/CEA) SOFIA the Local Truth 2016 6 / 24

[C ii] in the ionized gas [C ii] in the ionized gas Remarkably tight ratio across N 11. No regions with significantly larger ratio than PDR-dominated regions Integrated measurement: [N ii]/[c ii] (PACS) Integrated ratios [N ii]122, 205 µm/[c ii] (. 0.05, 0.02) much lower than theoretical ratio in ionized gas [CII]/PAH(IRAC4) Gas cooling / gas heating (PE), probe of PE heating efficiency (Helou+ 2001; Croxall+ 2012; Lebouteiller+ 2012; Okada+ 2013) [CII]+[OI] / PAH(IRAC4) Integrated measurement: [C ii]+[o i]/pah (PACS+Spitzer ) 0.100 0.010 0.001 0.100 0.010 0.001 Width < thermal broadening for C+ in ionized gas (7 km s 1 ). Exceptions: multiple components and one component toward #5 0.100 0.010 0.001 [N ii] 205 µm profile (GREAT) Expected [N ii] 205 µm profile assuming [C ii] originates fully from the ionized gas observed upper limit Again one possible exception toward #5 (where the [C ii] fraction in the ionized gas is. 2/3) Vianney Lebouteiller (AIM/CEA) [OI]/PAH(IRAC4) Line width for resolved components (GREAT) SOFIA the Local Truth 2016 10-6 10-5 F(PAH) [W m-2 sr-1] Fig.: [O i]/pah (bottom), [C ii]/pah (middle) and [C ii]+[o i]/pah (top) vs. PAH flux. 7 / 24

[C ii] in the ionized gas [C ii] in the ionized gas Integrated measurement: [C ii]+[o i]/pah (PACS+Spitzer) Gas cooling / gas heating (PE), probe of PE heating efficiency (Helou+ 2001; Croxall+ 2012; Lebouteiller+ 2012; Okada+ 2013) Remarkably tight ratio across N 11. No regions with significantly larger ratio than PDR-dominated regions NII205 / CII157 1.0 0.1 solar Integrated measurement: [N ii]/[c ii] (PACS) Integrated ratios [N ii]122, 205 µm/[c ii] ( 0.05, 0.02) much lower than theoretical ratio in ionized gas 5000 K 10 000 K 15 000 K 10 0 10 1 10 2 10 3 10 4 10 5 Density [cm-3] Line width for resolved components (GREAT) 1 solar Width < thermal broadening for C + in ionized gas (7 km s 1 ). Exceptions: multiple components and one component toward #5 [N ii] 205 µm profile (GREAT) Expected [N ii] 205 µm profile assuming [C ii] originates fully from the ionized gas observed upper limit Again one possible exception toward #5 (where the [C ii] fraction in the ionized gas is 2/3) NII122 / CII157 5000 K 10 000 K 15 000 K 10 0 10 1 10 2 10 3 10 4 10 5 Density [cm-3] Fig.: Theoretical [N ii]/[c ii] in the ionized gas. Vianney Lebouteiller (AIM/CEA) SOFIA the Local Truth 2016 7 / 24

[C ii] in the ionized gas [C ii] in the ionized gas Integrated measurement: [C ii]+[o i]/pah (PACS+Spitzer) Gas cooling / gas heating (PE), probe of PE heating efficiency (Helou+ 2001; Croxall+ 2012; Lebouteiller+ 2012; Okada+ 2013) Remarkably tight ratio across N 11. No regions with significantly larger ratio than PDR-dominated regions [CII] [OI] 63um Spitzer/IRAC 8um Integrated measurement: [N ii]/[c ii] (PACS) Integrated ratios [N ii]122, 205 µm/[c ii] ( 0.05, 0.02) much lower than theoretical ratio in ionized gas Line width for resolved components (GREAT) Width < thermal broadening for C + in ionized gas (7 km s 1 ). Exceptions: multiple components and one component toward #5 2MASS K H-alpha Spitzer/MIPS 24um [N ii] 205 µm profile (GREAT) Expected [N ii] 205 µm profile assuming [C ii] originates fully from the ionized gas observed upper limit Again one possible exception toward #5 (where the [C ii] fraction in the ionized gas is 2/3) Fig.: Pointing #5 observes toward stellar cluster LH 10, dominated by [O iii], 24 µm, Hα emission. Vianney Lebouteiller (AIM/CEA) SOFIA the Local Truth 2016 7 / 24

[C ii] in the ionized gas [C ii] in the ionized gas Integrated measurement: [C ii]+[o i]/pah (PACS+Spitzer) Gas cooling / gas heating (PE), probe of PE heating efficiency (Helou+ 2001; Croxall+ 2012; Lebouteiller+ 2012; Okada+ 2013) Remarkably tight ratio across N 11. No regions with significantly larger ratio than PDR-dominated regions #5 - N11 B HII Ha [NeIII] Integrated measurement: [N ii]/[c ii] (PACS) Integrated ratios [N ii]122, 205 µm/[c ii] ( 0.05, 0.02) much lower than theoretical ratio in ionized gas Line width for resolved components (GREAT) Width < thermal broadening for C + in ionized gas (7 km s 1 ). Exceptions: multiple components and one component toward #5 [NII] GREAT ALMA [N ii] 205 µm profile (GREAT) Expected [N ii] 205 µm profile assuming [C ii] originates fully from the ionized gas observed upper limit Again one possible exception toward #5 (where the [C ii] fraction in the ionized gas is 2/3) Fig.: One component toward pointing #5 could be associated with H i or with the ionized gas. Vianney Lebouteiller (AIM/CEA) SOFIA the Local Truth 2016 7 / 24

[C ii] in the ionized gas [C ii] in the ionized gas Integrated measurement: [C ii]+[o i]/pah (PACS+Spitzer) Gas cooling / gas heating (PE), probe of PE heating efficiency (Helou+ 2001; Croxall+ 2012; Lebouteiller+ 2012; Okada+ 2013) Remarkably tight ratio across N 11. No regions with significantly larger ratio than PDR-dominated regions #2 - N11 B PDR Ha [NeIII] Integrated measurement: [N ii]/[c ii] (PACS) Integrated ratios [N ii]122, 205 µm/[c ii] ( 0.05, 0.02) much lower than theoretical ratio in ionized gas Line width for resolved components (GREAT) Width < thermal broadening for C + in ionized gas (7 km s 1 ). Exceptions: multiple components and one component toward #5 [NII] GREAT ALMA [N ii] 205 µm profile (GREAT) Expected [N ii] 205 µm profile assuming [C ii] originates fully from the ionized gas observed upper limit Again one possible exception toward #5 (where the [C ii] fraction in the ionized gas is 2/3) Fig.: [C ii] originates from the neutral medium in most if not all components toward all pointings. Vianney Lebouteiller (AIM/CEA) SOFIA the Local Truth 2016 7 / 24

Profile decomposition [C ii] decomposition method (1/2): CO [C ii] H i Fitting increasingly complex profiles and add (as few) components as necessary Always a [C ii] component with same velocity and width as the CO component [C ii] appears wider because of multiple components (not because of larger-scale envelope around CO emitting-region) #6 - N11 C CII #6 - N11 C CII #6 - N11 C CII with CO no CO no CO no CII with CO no CO no CO no CII with CO no CO no CO no CII with CO no CO with CO no CO with CO no CO Fig.: The number of necessary components increases from CO to [C ii] to H i. Vianney Lebouteiller (AIM/CEA) SOFIA the Local Truth 2016 8 / 24

Profile decomposition [C ii] decomposition method (2/2): simultaneous fit The minimum number of components identified in CO, [C ii], and H i are now fed back to all the tracers Individual component properties #4 - N11 B CO #4 - N11 B CO with CO no CO no CO no CII with CO no CO ALMA ALMA Vianney Lebouteiller (AIM/CEA) SOFIA the Local Truth 2016 9 / 24

Profile decomposition Statistics on components Regimes No bright [C ii] components with low f (H 2 ) (as derived from CO) Two main regimes Bright, narrow, [C ii] components with large f (H 2 ) Faint, broad, [C ii] components with low f (H 2 ) Some components with moderately bright [C ii] components & low f (H 2 ) Candidates for CO-dark molecular or atomic gas f([cii]) 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 Bright [CII] comp. not associated with CO Faint [CII] comp. not associated with CO 12/-0.22 10/-4.15 7/-0.30 2/4.98 9/0.38 11/-0.15 8/-3.00 6/0.93 1/-2.16 3/2.23 5/-10.72 9/-3.50 3/8.00 11/-4.00 4/1.04 1/2.18 5/6.02 3/-8.84 2/10.00 8/-0.02 6/-4.96 4/-1.59 7/-3.81 4/4.00 6/3.58 8/5.00 5/-7.00 1/7.35 1/-7.40 4/9.66 10/-8.30 5/-28.21 10/-0.16 4/-9.79 5/-19.08 12/4.83 6/-13.46 11/12.00 2/0.04 5/35.00 9/-13.16 3/-33.00 1/-16.41 3/26.07 2/-8.00 2/33.58 2/-15.19 3/-20.39 4/-36.00 4/-23.28 5/-14.00 4/17.08 6/-4.00 7/-23.41 7/4.57 7/12.00 8/-14.00 9/-28.00 9/5.00 11/-12.00 12/20.29 10/-15.14 10/5.00 6/-23.44/25.48 11/5.00 12/-18.00 1/-23.59 7/-13.51 1/17.00 10/14.19 12/-26.45 2/20.00 12/-34.00 2/-24.47 8/-27.59 1/-32.00 2/-34.23 12/-5.00 10/-23.04 11/-26.11 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 f(h2) Fig.: Fraction of [C ii] in component vs. molecular gas fraction. Size of symbol component line width. Vianney Lebouteiller (AIM/CEA) SOFIA the Local Truth 2016 10 / 24

More results Theoretical expectations Method Calculate theoretical [C ii] intensity for collisions with H 0, e, and H 2 Using observed column densities of individual components for H 0 and H 2 Allowing 10 more to accommodate for low spatial resolution (H i and CO) or for dense PDRs not well traced by H i 21 cm Two phases: neutral atomic n(h 0 ) = 500 cm 3, and molecular n(h 2 ) = 10 3 4 cm 3 Using 6 10 20 K km s 1 cm 2 for X CO (Roman-Duval+ 2014) 10-6 10-7 I([CII]) 10-8 10-9 n(h2) = 1000 cm -3 n(h2) = 10000 cm -3 10 19 10 20 10 21 10 22 N(H2) Fig.: Expected [C ii] line intensity for given H 0, H 2 column densities and volume densities. Vianney Lebouteiller (AIM/CEA) SOFIA the Local Truth 2016 11 / 24

More results Theoretical expectations Results Many [C ii] components associated with CO require either much larger column densities (dense PDRs / CO-dark gas) Collisions with H 2 dominate there + discrepancy even using ALMA (high) column densities CO-dark gas? #4 - N11 B CO #4 - N(HI)=19.95 - N(H2 CO)=20.62 - I([CII])=2.15600e-07 10-6 10-7 Observed I([CII]) ALMA I([CII]) 10-8 10-9 10 19 10 20 10 21 10 22 N(H2) Observed N(H2 CO) n(h2) = 1000 cm -3 n(h2) = 10000 cm -3 Vianney Lebouteiller (AIM/CEA) SOFIA the Local Truth 2016 12 / 24

More results Well-behaved clouds Some pointings (#9, #11, #12, #7, and #8), despite being CO bright, do not have any component that requires extra density and/or CO-dark gas Common property: quiescent CO clouds Indirect evidence of CO-dark gas in other pointings due to presence of massive stars #1 #4 #2 #7 #6 #3 #5 #8 #9 #10 #11 #12 Fig.: Hα image of LMC-N 11, with contours. Vianney Lebouteiller (AIM/CEA) SOFIA the Local Truth 2016 13 / 24

More results 8/-3.00 3/2.23 10/-4.15 7/-0.30 1/-2.16 12/-0.22 2/4.98 9/0.38 11/-0.15 6/0.93 5/-10.72 9/-3.50 3/8.00 11/-4.00 4/1.04 1/2.18 5/6.02 3/-8.84 2/10.00 8/-0.02 6/-4.96 4/-1.59 7/-3.81 4/4.00 6/3.58 8/5.00 5/-7.00 1/7.35 1/-7.40 4/9.66 10/-8.30 5/-28.21 10/-0.16 4/-9.79 5/-19.08 12/4.83 6/-13.46 11/12.00 2/0.04 5/35.00 9/-13.16 3/-33.00 1/-16.41 3/26.07 2/-8.00 2/33.58 2/-15.19 3/-20.39 4/-36.00 4/-23.28 5/-14.00 4/17.08 6/-4.00 7/-23.41 7/4.57 7/12.00 8/-14.00 9/-28.00 9/5.00 11/-12.00 12/20.29 10/-15.14 10/5.00 6/-23.44/25.48 11/5.00 12/-18.00 1/-23.59 7/-13.51 1/17.00 10/14.19 12/-26.45 2/20.00 12/-34.00 2/-24.47 8/-27.59 1/-32.00 2/-34.23 12/-5.00 10/-23.04 11/-26.11 Weak [C ii] components not associated with (bright) CO are compatible with theoretical calculation Collisions with H 0 are enough for these components ([C ii] in CNM candidate?) interestingly hard to probe in more distant sources, beam effect? (Fahrion+ 2016) #5 - N11 B HII f([cii]) 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 Bright [CII] comp. not associated with CO Faint [CII] comp. not associated with CO 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 f(h2) #9 - N(HI)=21.14 - N(H2 CO)=19.89 - I([CII])=8.51916e-08 #9 - N11 D 10-6 10-7 Observed I([CII]) I([CII]) 10-8 ALMA 10-9 Observed N(H2 CO) n(h2) = 1000 cm -3 n(h2) = 10000 cm -3 10 19 10 20 10 21 10 22 N(H2) Vianney Lebouteiller (AIM/CEA) SOFIA the Local Truth 2016 14 / 24

Conclusion Prospectives Prospectives Observations Entire region scale: what phases dominate and what is the fraction of CO-dark gas? mapping capabilities of upgreat Ionized gas contamination deeper [N ii] 205 µm, new [O i] 63 µm Hα radio continuum H radio recombination line (Pérez-Beaupuits+ 2015) Calculations Decomposition tricky, no unique solution but some robustness for results PDR models to improve the (naive) theoretical predictions H i 21 cm favors the lower density gas What cools the H i components not seen in [C ii]? Very diffuse gas with [C ii] too faint? LMC only 1/2 Z. Lower metallicities need to be explored for effects on the CO-dark gas (but at extremely low metallicities, photoelectric effect may not dominate anymore) Vianney Lebouteiller (AIM/CEA) SOFIA the Local Truth 2016 15 / 24

Conclusion Summary Summary SOFIA/GREAT observations of [C ii] and [N ii] 205 µm in LMC-N 11 No evidence of [C ii] in the ionized gas (only one exception, maybe) Most of the [C ii] is associated with components with large f (H 2 ) The brightest [C ii] component toward all pointing is always associated with CO, with similar velocity and width Theoretical calculations suggest that most [C ii] bright components associated with CO require either CO-dark gas or significantly larger column densities Consistent with large X CO factor calculated in 30 Dor? (Chevance+ 2016) Some [C ii] components associated with CO are ok with theoretical calculation Quiescent CO clouds Several extra components seen in [C ii], some seem to be associated with H i. Usually relatively broad. Most extra components agree with theoretical expectations (CNM faint components?) Vianney Lebouteiller (AIM/CEA) SOFIA the Local Truth 2016 16 / 24

Conclusion Summary END extra slides Vianney Lebouteiller (AIM/CEA) SOFIA the Local Truth 2016 17 / 24

Extra slides GREAT vs. PACS SOFIA/GREAT vs. Herschel/PACS All except one pointing observed with Herschel/PACS (SHINING program). #1 N11 A & B #7 #6 N11 C & D #10 #11 N11 I #12 N11 south #4 #2 #8 #9 #3 #5 Fig.: PACS observations [C ii] in red, [O i] in green, and [O iii] 88 µm in blue. CO(1-0 contours) [C ii] 157 µm PACS fluxes lower by 50% on average Caveat #1: using 14.1 for HPBW as measured in 2014, i.e., assuming observations are close to diffraction limit Caveat #2: Flux calibration extended/point-source [N ii] 205 µm 0.1 Upper limits with GREAT and PACS 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 [x10-15 W m - 2] [CII] PACS/GREAT 10.0 1.0 Fig.: Comparison of GREAT and PACS [C ii] fluxes. Vianney Lebouteiller (AIM/CEA) SOFIA the Local Truth 2016 18 / 24

ALMA MAGMA ALMA MAGMA ALMA MAGMA ALMA MAGMA Extra slides ALMA vs. MAGMA observations in N 11B ALMA observation (PI Lebouteiller) Drastic improvement of S/N and velocity resolution, especially toward stellar cluster where [C ii] is detected Good agreement with MAGMA (matched to 45 ) MOPRA/MAGMA 1.2 #2 - N11 B PDR 1.2 #3 - N11 B UCHIIR 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0-0.2-30 -20-10 0 10 20 30 1.2 1.0 #4 - N11 B CO -0.2-30 -20-10 0 10 20 30 1.2 1.0 #5 - N11 B HII ALMA 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.0-0.2-30 -20-10 0 10 20 30 0.0-0.2-30 -20-10 0 10 20 30 Fig.: Comparison of MOPRA/MAGMA and ALMA maps in N 11B. 10 pc Fig.: Comparison of MOPRA/MAGMA and ALMA maps in N 11B. Vianney Lebouteiller (AIM/CEA) SOFIA the Local Truth 2016 19 / 24

Extra slides ALMA vs. MAGMA [C ii] in the ionized gas [N ii]/[c ii] intensity ratio with PACS Integrated ratios [N ii]122 µm/[c ii] ( 0.05) and [N ii]205 µm/[c ii] ( 0.02) much lower than theoretical ratio in ionized gas most [C ii] arises from neutral gas Thermal broadening NII205 / CII157 1.0 0.1 solar Expected thermal broadening for C + in ionized gas: 7 km s 1. Observed < 7 km s 1, except for pointings with multiple components and for one resolved component toward pointing #5 5000 K 10 000 K 15 000 K 10 0 10 1 10 2 10 3 10 4 10 5 Density [cm-3] solar 1 [N ii] 205 µm with GREAT We calculate the expected [N ii] 205 µm profile assuming [C ii] originates fully from the ionized gas No significant evidence of ionized gas contamination, except maybe toward #5 (where the [C ii] fraction in the ionized gas is 2/3) NII122 / CII157 5000 K 10 000 K 15 000 K 10 0 10 1 10 2 10 3 10 4 10 5 Density [cm-3] Fig.: Theoretical [N ii]/[c ii] in the ionized gas. ] Vianney Lebouteiller (AIM/CEA) SOFIA the Local Truth 2016 20 / 24

Extra slides ALMA vs. MAGMA [C ii] in the ionized gas [N ii]/[c ii] intensity ratio with PACS Integrated ratios [N ii]122 µm/[c ii] ( 0.05) and [N ii]205 µm/[c ii] ( 0.02) much lower than theoretical ratio in ionized gas most [C ii] arises from neutral gas [CII] [OI] 63um Spitzer/IRAC 8um Thermal broadening Expected thermal broadening for C + in ionized gas: 7 km s 1. Observed < 7 km s 1, except for pointings with multiple components and for one resolved component toward pointing #5 2MASS K H-alpha Spitzer/MIPS 24um [N ii] 205 µm with GREAT We calculate the expected [N ii] 205 µm profile assuming [C ii] originates fully from the ionized gas No significant evidence of ionized gas contamination, except maybe toward #5 (where the [C ii] fraction in the ionized gas is 2/3) Fig.: Pointing #5 probes a region toward the stellar cluster LH 10 dominated by [O iii], 24 µm, Hα emission. Vianney Lebouteiller (AIM/CEA) SOFIA the Local Truth 2016 20 / 24

Extra slides ALMA vs. MAGMA [C ii] in the ionized gas [N ii]/[c ii] intensity ratio with PACS Integrated ratios [N ii]122 µm/[c ii] ( 0.05) and [N ii]205 µm/[c ii] ( 0.02) much lower than theoretical ratio in ionized gas most [C ii] arises from neutral gas #5 - N11 B HII Ha [NeIII] Thermal broadening Expected thermal broadening for C + in ionized gas: 7 km s 1. Observed < 7 km s 1, except for pointings with multiple components and for one resolved component toward pointing #5 [NII] GREAT [N ii] 205 µm with GREAT We calculate the expected [N ii] 205 µm profile assuming [C ii] originates fully from the ionized gas No significant evidence of ionized gas contamination, except maybe toward #5 (where the [C ii] fraction in the ionized gas is 2/3) ALMA Fig.: One component toward pointing #5 could be associated with H i or with the ionized gas. Vianney Lebouteiller (AIM/CEA) SOFIA the Local Truth 2016 20 / 24

Extra slides ALMA vs. MAGMA [C ii] in the ionized gas [N ii]/[c ii] intensity ratio with PACS Integrated ratios [N ii]122 µm/[c ii] ( 0.05) and [N ii]205 µm/[c ii] ( 0.02) much lower than theoretical ratio in ionized gas most [C ii] arises from neutral gas #2 - N11 B PDR Ha [NeIII] Thermal broadening Expected thermal broadening for C + in ionized gas: 7 km s 1. Observed < 7 km s 1, except for pointings with multiple components and for one resolved component toward pointing #5 [NII] GREAT [N ii] 205 µm with GREAT We calculate the expected [N ii] 205 µm profile assuming [C ii] originates fully from the ionized gas No significant evidence of ionized gas contamination, except maybe toward #5 (where the [C ii] fraction in the ionized gas is 2/3) Contamination of [C ii] in the ionized gas is unlikely, even for individual components ALMA Fig.: [C ii] originates from the neutral medium in most if not all components toward all pointings. Vianney Lebouteiller (AIM/CEA) SOFIA the Local Truth 2016 20 / 24

Extra slides ALMA vs. MAGMA [C ii]+[o i]/pah Gas cooling in neutral gas: [C ii] + [O i] (+...) Gas heating (PE): PAH or FIR Remarkably tight [C ii]+[o i]/pah across N 11. No regions with significantly larger ratio than PDR-dominated regions Circumstancial evidence that integrated [C ii] arises from the neutral gas N11 A & B #1 N11 I N11 C & D #7 #6 #4 #3 #2 #10 #11 #8 #9 0.010 0.001 0.100 0.010 0.100 0.010 0.001 10-6 10-5 F(PAH) [W m-2 sr-1] #5 Fig.: PACS observations [C ii] in red, [O i] in green, and [O iii] 88 µm in blue. CO(1-0 contours) Vianney Lebouteiller (AIM/CEA) 0.100 0.001 [OI]/PAH(IRAC4) Ratio [C ii]+[o i]/pah as probe of PE heating efficiency (Helou+ 2001; Croxall+ 2012; Lebouteiller+ 2012; Okada+ 2013) [CII]/PAH(IRAC4) [CII]+[OI] / PAH(IRAC4) Photoelectric efficiency (PE) Fig.: [O i]/pah (bottom), [C ii]/pah (middle) and [C ii]+[o i]/pah vs. PAH flux. SOFIA the Local Truth 2016 21 / 24

Extra slides ALMA vs. MAGMA H i Vianney Lebouteiller (AIM/CEA) SOFIA the Local Truth 2016 22 / 24

Extra slides ALMA vs. MAGMA Theoretical expectations Results Brightest [C ii] components usually require either much larger column densities and/or volume densities. CO-dark gas is also a plausible explanation. Multiple high column-density components in beam not always an issue Low densities sometimes required, e.g., for all components toward #5 #5 - N11 B HII [CII] [OI] 63um Spitzer/IRAC 8um #5 - N(HI)=20.69 - N(H2 CO)=20.65 - I([CII])=6.47103e-09 10-6 10-7 ALMA I([CII]) 2MASS K H-alpha Spitzer/MIPS 24um 10-8 Observed I([CII]) n(h2) = 1000 cm -3 10-9 n(h2) = 10000 cm -3 10 19 10 20 10 21 10 22 N(H2) Observed N(H2 CO) Vianney Lebouteiller (AIM/CEA) SOFIA the Local Truth 2016 23 / 24

Extra slides ALMA vs. MAGMA Summary of data Vianney Lebouteiller (AIM/CEA) SOFIA the Local Truth 2016 24 / 24