adsabs/AstroCLIMB huggingface dataset:
Paper: DART Impact Ejecta Plume Evolution: Implications for Dimorphos
Authors: Andrew F. Cheng, S. D. Raducan, M. Jutzi, T. L. Farnham, E. Dotto, V. Della Corte, E. Mazzotta Epifani, A. Rossi, I. Gai, J. Deshapriya, P. Hasselmann, I. Bertini, A. Zinzi, S. Ivanovski, J. Brucato, Giovanni Poggiali, A. Lucchetti, M. Pajola, G. Zanotti, M. Amoroso, A. Capannolo, G. Cremonese, M. Dall'Ora, S. Ieva, G. Impresario, M. Lavagna, D. Modenini, P. Palumbo, D. Perna, S. Pirrotta, P. Tortora, M. Zannoni
Figure caption: DART impact on Dimorphos is at the origin of Cartesian coordinates  x – y – z . LICIACube trajectory is shown by the dashed blue line in the  x – y  plane. The LICIACube position is (x  s , y  s , 0) in distant approach. The LOS from LICIACube to the Dimorphos impact site defines the  y    b   axis. The plane of sky at Dimorphos seen from LICIACube is the  x    b  – z  plane (shaded), which is rotated around  z  from  x – z . Optical depth profiles in the plane of sky calculated by Cheng et al. (2020) are at constant z = 0. Optical depth profiles at arbitrary z = z 0 are given here. The DART impact ejecta cone, shown in yellow, is a hollow cone with negligibly thin walls. The cone axis is  y , with ejecta angle α. The ejecta cone crossing and closest approach indicated by c/a of the LICIACube trajectory are indicated by blue circles.
Paper: DART Impact Ejecta Plume Evolution: Implications for Dimorphos
Authors: Andrew F. Cheng, S. D. Raducan, M. Jutzi, T. L. Farnham, E. Dotto, V. Della Corte, E. Mazzotta Epifani, A. Rossi, I. Gai, J. Deshapriya, P. Hasselmann, I. Bertini, A. Zinzi, S. Ivanovski, J. Brucato, Giovanni Poggiali, A. Lucchetti, M. Pajola, G. Zanotti, M. Amoroso, A. Capannolo, G. Cremonese, M. Dall'Ora, S. Ieva, G. Impresario, M. Lavagna, D. Modenini, P. Palumbo, D. Perna, S. Pirrotta, P. Tortora, M. Zannoni
Figure caption: Brightness profiles across limbs and terminators of Dimorphos and Didymos, showing DN radiance in arbitrary units vs. pixel distance measured from top to bottom along image lines marked a–f. Profiles a–c are across the terminator (lower pixel distance) and sunlit limb (higher pixel distance) of Didymos, without ejecta plume. Profiles d–f are across the ejecta plume and/or Dimorphos. Dimorphos is partly obscured by the ejecta plume. Profile b above pixel distance 160 shows glare, indicating an excess emission region above the subsolar limb of Didymos. Profiles d and e pass through a Z-shaped plume shadow, in the T+158 s image, between pixel distances 160 and 180. The distance 200 m is 31 pixels.
Paper: DART Impact Ejecta Plume Evolution: Implications for Dimorphos
Authors: Andrew F. Cheng, S. D. Raducan, M. Jutzi, T. L. Farnham, E. Dotto, V. Della Corte, E. Mazzotta Epifani, A. Rossi, I. Gai, J. Deshapriya, P. Hasselmann, I. Bertini, A. Zinzi, S. Ivanovski, J. Brucato, Giovanni Poggiali, A. Lucchetti, M. Pajola, G. Zanotti, M. Amoroso, A. Capannolo, G. Cremonese, M. Dall'Ora, S. Ieva, G. Impresario, M. Lavagna, D. Modenini, P. Palumbo, D. Perna, S. Pirrotta, P. Tortora, M. Zannoni
Figure caption: Left: LUKE image at T+158 s, before closest approach. LICIACube is inside the ejecta cone. Didymos is the larger body at upper left, with Dimorphos and the ejecta plume at bottom. The scale bar at the distance of Dimorphos and directions of  b  and  z  axes are shown. Right: projected north celestial pole direction indicated by NCP. The solar illumination direction is indicated by the solar symbol (solar direction is 47.°4 out of the page). Viewing direction from HST is indicated by HST. The dotted red line is the DART incident trajectory (incident velocity vector directed 44.°8 into the page). The orbit of Dimorphos is shown in blue, as is positive rotation and orbital pole. The orange bar shows the direction of Dimorphos orbital motion.
Paper: DART Impact Ejecta Plume Evolution: Implications for Dimorphos
Authors: Andrew F. Cheng, S. D. Raducan, M. Jutzi, T. L. Farnham, E. Dotto, V. Della Corte, E. Mazzotta Epifani, A. Rossi, I. Gai, J. Deshapriya, P. Hasselmann, I. Bertini, A. Zinzi, S. Ivanovski, J. Brucato, Giovanni Poggiali, A. Lucchetti, M. Pajola, G. Zanotti, M. Amoroso, A. Capannolo, G. Cremonese, M. Dall'Ora, S. Ieva, G. Impresario, M. Lavagna, D. Modenini, P. Palumbo, D. Perna, S. Pirrotta, P. Tortora, M. Zannoni
Figure caption: Brightness profiles across limbs and terminators of Dimorphos and Didymos, showing DN vs. pixel distance measured from left to right along image lines marked a–d. Profiles a–b are across the terminator and sunlit limb of Didymos, without ejecta plume. Profiles c–d are across the ejecta plume and/or Dimorphos. Dimorphos is in front of the ejecta plume. Profile b below pixel distance 50 shows glare, indicating an excess emission region above the subsolar limb of Didymos. The arrow marks the extent of the sharply defined terminator, ∼200 km above Dimorphos. The distance 200 m is 34.5 pixels.
Paper: DART Impact Ejecta Plume Evolution: Implications for Dimorphos
Authors: Andrew F. Cheng, S. D. Raducan, M. Jutzi, T. L. Farnham, E. Dotto, V. Della Corte, E. Mazzotta Epifani, A. Rossi, I. Gai, J. Deshapriya, P. Hasselmann, I. Bertini, A. Zinzi, S. Ivanovski, J. Brucato, Giovanni Poggiali, A. Lucchetti, M. Pajola, G. Zanotti, M. Amoroso, A. Capannolo, G. Cremonese, M. Dall'Ora, S. Ieva, G. Impresario, M. Lavagna, D. Modenini, P. Palumbo, D. Perna, S. Pirrotta, P. Tortora, M. Zannoni
Figure caption: Left: LUKE image acquired at 175 s after DART impact, after closest approach. LICIACube is on departure trajectory. Dimorphos is in front of the ejecta plume. Annotations and scale bar are as in Figure 2. The solar direction is 6° out of the page. The DART incident velocity is directed 38.°2 out of the page.
Paper: Atmospheric Loss in Giant Impacts Depends on Preimpact Surface Conditions
Authors: Simon J. Lock, Sarah T. Stewart
Figure caption: The presence of an ocean can both increase and decrease the efficiency of atmospheric loss. A: release velocity of the ocean surface, as determined by an impedance-match calculation, as a function of the particle velocity of the shock in the planet before release to the base of the ocean for atmospheres with different pressures (colors) and compositions (line styles). The particle velocity of the ground on release to very low pressures (1 Pa, black dashed line), the impedance-match velocity for release of the ground into a water ocean (deep blue solid line), and the impedance-match velocity of the ocean when released to low pressure (1 Pa, blue dashed line) are also shown. B: the fraction of atmosphere lost due to the breakout of a shock wave of a given particle velocity before release to the ocean, for different ratios of atmospheric to ocean mass (﹩{ \mathcal R }﹩). Calculations are for an Earth-mass planet. Loss was calculated by convolving our parameterization for loss in the ocean case (Section C) with the impedance-match velocity on release of the shock from the planet to the base of the ocean. The loss that could be driven by release of the ground to very low pressures (1 Pa) is shown as a black dashed line (as in Figure 12). C: the atmosphere-to-ocean mass ratio required for a shock of the same strength to remove the same amount of atmosphere as in the no-ocean case. Bodies with a higher atmosphere-to-ocean mass ratios than this critical ratio will experience less efficient loss than in the no-ocean case.
Paper: Atmospheric Loss in Giant Impacts Depends on Preimpact Surface Conditions
Authors: Simon J. Lock, Sarah T. Stewart
Figure caption: The initial velocity of the surface that is driving atmospheric loss depends on the properties of the atmosphere. A: impedance-match solution in the no-ocean case. Solid or dotted lines show the Hugoniots (the locus of physical states produced by shock waves in a material) for forsterite (black, a proxy for the planet’s surface) and atmospheres of varying composition and initial pressure. Black dashed lines show the path for isentropic release of the forsterite shocked to particle velocities of 1, 3, and 5 km s−1. The pressure and velocity of both the planet’s surface and the atmosphere upon breakout of the shock is set by the intersection of the forsterite release curve and the Hugoniot of the relevant atmosphere (black symbols). The impedance-match ground velocity is higher for lower-pressure, lower-molecular-weight, and hotter atmospheres (Figures 12(A)–(C)). B: impedance-match solution in the presence of an ocean. Lines and symbols are the same as in A with the addition of the shock Hugoniot of water (blue solid line), isentropic release curves for water (blue dashed lines), and blue symbols marking the impedance-match solutions for the ocean with different atmospheres. The release curve of water is shallower that that of forsterite and intersects the atmosphere Hugoniots at higher particle velocities than the rock release curve. Similarly to the no-ocean case, lower-pressure and lighter atmospheres lead to larger initial velocities of the ocean surface (Figure 14(A)).
Paper: Atmospheric Loss in Giant Impacts Depends on Preimpact Surface Conditions
Authors: Simon J. Lock, Sarah T. Stewart
Figure caption: Nonballistic motion of the ground can affect the efficiency of loss. Shown is loss as a function of maximum ground velocity with different rise times (A) and stopping times (B) for the ground motion. Loss was calculated for an Earth-mass planet with a 3 km ocean and an atmospheric pressure of 100 bar. For reference, the instantaneous rise time solution is shown in black. Axis labels are the same as in Figure 6.
Paper: Atmospheric Loss in Giant Impacts Depends on Preimpact Surface Conditions
Authors: Simon J. Lock, Sarah T. Stewart
Figure caption: The results of our 1D calculations are not sensitive to the intrinsic parameters in the code. Shown is the loss as a function of ground velocity for an example simulation (H oc = 3 km, p 0 = 100 bar, and a CO2 atmosphere at 300 K) calculated varying run parameters B 1 (1–10), B 2 (0.1–5), ﹩{K}_{{{\rm{t}}}_{1}}﹩ (1.05–1.2), ﹩{K}_{{{\rm{t}}}_{2}}﹩ (0.6–0.9), N oc (250–750), and N atm (250–750). Each parameter was varied while holding all others constant at the values given in Table 4.
Paper: Atmospheric Loss in Giant Impacts Depends on Preimpact Surface Conditions
Authors: Simon J. Lock, Sarah T. Stewart
Figure caption: Our parameterization can accurately determine loss as a function of ground velocity. Shown are our simulation results for the same example surface conditions as in Figure 6(A) but for CO2 atmospheres (solid lines) and loss curves calculated using our parameterization (dashed lines). Gray band shows the full range of possible loss from Earth-mass bodies determined using our parameterization.
Paper: The DECam Ecliptic Exploration Project (DEEP). V. The Absolute Magnitude Distribution of the Cold Classical Kuiper Belt
Authors: Kevin J. Napier, Hsing Wen Lin, 省 文 林, David W. Gerdes, Fred C. Adams, Anna M. Simpson, Matthew W. Porter, Katherine G. Weber, Larissa Markwardt, Gabriel Gowman, Hayden Smotherman, Pedro H. Bernardinelli, Mario Jurić, Andrew J. Connolly, J. Bryce Kalmbach, Stephen K. N. Portillo, David E. Trilling, Ryder Strauss, William J. Oldroyd, Chadwick A. Trujillo, Colin Orion Chandler, Matthew J. Holman, Hilke E. Schlichting, Andrew McNeill
Figure caption: Absolute magnitude distribution of the CCs in our sample compared to those in Kavelaars et al. (2021). The black line is our best-fit exponentially tapered power law, and the dark gray region represents the 95% confidence interval. Note that we have no detections brighter than H  r  ∼ 6.3. The red line is the best fit from Kavelaars et al. (2021), and the white and green circles were taken from the same work. The white circles represent where the inventory of the CCs is considered complete, and the green circle is computed using the detections from Bernstein et al. (2004).
Paper: The DECam Ecliptic Exploration Project (DEEP). V. The Absolute Magnitude Distribution of the Cold Classical Kuiper Belt
Authors: Kevin J. Napier, Hsing Wen Lin, 省 文 林, David W. Gerdes, Fred C. Adams, Anna M. Simpson, Matthew W. Porter, Katherine G. Weber, Larissa Markwardt, Gabriel Gowman, Hayden Smotherman, Pedro H. Bernardinelli, Mario Jurić, Andrew J. Connolly, J. Bryce Kalmbach, Stephen K. N. Portillo, David E. Trilling, Ryder Strauss, William J. Oldroyd, Chadwick A. Trujillo, Colin Orion Chandler, Matthew J. Holman, Hilke E. Schlichting, Andrew McNeill
Figure caption: Best-fit differential distributions for the single, rolling, broken, and exponentially tapered power laws in purple, blue, yellow, and red, respectively. The points and 1σ error bars represent the differential distribution of our detections, corrected for efficiency and weights. The points are meant only as a visual aid—we always use the maximum likelihood technique to fit our data. Note that our fits are not normalized with respect to latitude, but rather they represent the average sky density among the fields in our pointing mosaic.
Paper: The DECam Ecliptic Exploration Project (DEEP). V. The Absolute Magnitude Distribution of the Cold Classical Kuiper Belt
Authors: Kevin J. Napier, Hsing Wen Lin, 省 文 林, David W. Gerdes, Fred C. Adams, Anna M. Simpson, Matthew W. Porter, Katherine G. Weber, Larissa Markwardt, Gabriel Gowman, Hayden Smotherman, Pedro H. Bernardinelli, Mario Jurić, Andrew J. Connolly, J. Bryce Kalmbach, Stephen K. N. Portillo, David E. Trilling, Ryder Strauss, William J. Oldroyd, Chadwick A. Trujillo, Colin Orion Chandler, Matthew J. Holman, Hilke E. Schlichting, Andrew McNeill
Figure caption: Recovery efficiency for implanted sources as a function of r-band magnitude. The combined efficiency for all 20 nights of data is given by the dashed line, while individual nights’ efficiencies are given by the gray lines. The average m 50 for our entire survey is m  r  ∼ 26.2, with individual nights ranging from 25.92–26.65. Our average peak efficiency, η 0, is ≳0.92, with individual nights ranging from 0.85–0.95. For reference, we also show limits from DES (Bernardinelli et al. 2022), OSSOS (Bannister et al. 2018), and the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (Ivezić et al. 2019).
Paper: The DECam Ecliptic Exploration Project (DEEP). V. The Absolute Magnitude Distribution of the Cold Classical Kuiper Belt
Authors: Kevin J. Napier, Hsing Wen Lin, 省 文 林, David W. Gerdes, Fred C. Adams, Anna M. Simpson, Matthew W. Porter, Katherine G. Weber, Larissa Markwardt, Gabriel Gowman, Hayden Smotherman, Pedro H. Bernardinelli, Mario Jurić, Andrew J. Connolly, J. Bryce Kalmbach, Stephen K. N. Portillo, David E. Trilling, Ryder Strauss, William J. Oldroyd, Chadwick A. Trujillo, Colin Orion Chandler, Matthew J. Holman, Hilke E. Schlichting, Andrew McNeill
Figure caption: Best-fit differential distributions for the single, rolling, broken, and exponentially tapered power laws in purple, blue, yellow, and red, respectively. The points and 1σ error bars represent the differential distribution of our detections, corrected for efficiency and weights. Note that our fits are not normalized with respect to latitude, but rather they represent the average sky density among the fields in our pointing mosaic.
Paper: The DECam Ecliptic Exploration Project (DEEP). V. The Absolute Magnitude Distribution of the Cold Classical Kuiper Belt
Authors: Kevin J. Napier, Hsing Wen Lin, 省 文 林, David W. Gerdes, Fred C. Adams, Anna M. Simpson, Matthew W. Porter, Katherine G. Weber, Larissa Markwardt, Gabriel Gowman, Hayden Smotherman, Pedro H. Bernardinelli, Mario Jurić, Andrew J. Connolly, J. Bryce Kalmbach, Stephen K. N. Portillo, David E. Trilling, Ryder Strauss, William J. Oldroyd, Chadwick A. Trujillo, Colin Orion Chandler, Matthew J. Holman, Hilke E. Schlichting, Andrew McNeill
Figure caption: Sky motion parameter space for simulated CCs and HCs in B1a on 2020 October 18. The dashed line shows the CC selection region for this night.
Paper: Noble Gas Planetology and the Xenon Clouds of Uranus
Authors: Kevin Zahnle
Figure caption: Imagining noble gas abundances of Uranus. Jovian data (filled blue triangles) have been updated from von Zahn & Hunten (1996), Mahaffy et al. (2000), and Wong et al. (2004). The data are plotted as ratios to solar abundances (Lodders 2019). For the Jovian N/H2 ratio, we use an NH3 abundance of ﹩{340}_{-17}^{+27}﹩ ppmv (Moeckel et al. 2023), to which we add the putative NH4SH cloud using H2S, as reported by the Galileo Probe (Wong et al. 2004). The open blue triangle is a Juno inference of equatorial H2O (Li et al. 2020). The Uranian C/H2 ratio is from CH4 (red filled disk), which presents variable deep atmospheric volume mixing ratios of order 2%–5% (Sromovsky et al. 2011), corresponding to a metallicity enhancement of 60 ± 25. An O/H2 ratio (red half-filled disk) is inferred from thermochemical quenching theory (Venot et al. 2020). One set of hypothetical Uranian abundances of Ar, Kr, and Xe is scaled with C from Jupiter (open red circles). Another set is scaled from abundances in the comet 67P/C-G assuming a solar C/O ratio (open green squares). A third set is scaled from volatile C abundances in 67P/C-G (open black diamonds, using data tabulated by Mandt et al. 2020). In this case, we have arbitrarily plotted S but not N. For clarity, points are plotted with small artificial shifts along the x-axis.
Paper: Noble Gas Planetology and the Xenon Clouds of Uranus
Authors: Kevin Zahnle
Figure caption: Selected xenon isotopes in the solar system. In the top panel, abundances are normalized to 132Xe. This shows which nuclei are favored by nucleosynthesis. Nucleosynthetic sources of each isotope are indicated: “r” for rapid neutron addition, “s” for slow, and “p” for rapid proton addition. U-Xe is the reconstructed birth composition of Xe in air (Pepin 2000). Phase Q and AVCC-Xe are representative of carbonaceous chondrites (Pepin 1991; Busemann et al. 2000). The bottom panel renormalizes the top panel to solar abundances, which facilitates comparing patterns. The Xe in comet 67P/C-G stands out as being rich in partially radiogenic 129Xe (129I, 15.7 Myr half-life, also r+s) and as being extremely deficient in the heavy r-only isotopes 134Xe and 136Xe (Marty et al. 2017). The pink shading suggests the range of what might be found on Uranus.
Paper: Noble Gas Planetology and the Xenon Clouds of Uranus
Authors: Kevin Zahnle
Figure caption: Xenon clouds. The plot compares condensation temperatures to a nominal p–T profile of Uranus (Sromovsky et al. 2011). Condensation occurs when the ambient temperature is colder than the condensation temperature. For methane, we assume a 4% volume mixing ratio below the cloud base. For Xe, we show three different abundances: 100 times, 30 times, and 2.5 times solar. Xenon is expected to condense in all three cases. For the Ar and Kr, condensation we show only the highest-abundance 100 times solar cases.
Paper: Noble Gas Planetology and the Xenon Clouds of Uranus
Authors: Kevin Zahnle
Figure caption: Reconstructed isotopic compositions of U-Xe—Earth’s birth Xe—compared to other selected xenons. The red shaded region is the range of possible U-Xe compositions consistent with plausible amounts of 244Pu fission Xe in air. This derivation does not take chondritic Xe into account. Standard U-Xe, quoted from Pepin (1991) and Pepin (2000), uses the composition of chondritic Xe to provide additional constraints. By construction, U-Xe and SW-Xe are identical for light isotopes. The differences seen here stem from revisions of the solar wind.
Paper: Noble Gas Planetology and the Xenon Clouds of Uranus
Authors: Kevin Zahnle
Figure caption: Krypton isotopes in the solar system: abundances and nucleosynthetic sources. The top panel normalizes abundances to 84Xe. This shows which nuclei are favored by nucleosynthesis. The bottom panel is normalized to solar abundances, which facilitates comparing patterns. Phase Q, AVCC-Xe (Pepin 1991; Busemann et al. 2000), and air are similar—all are mass-fractionated with respect to the Sun, although air slightly less so. Mars’s atmosphere is solar and its interior appears chondritic (Péron & Mukhopadhyay 2022). 67P/C-G appears to show distinct nucleosynthetic anomalies (Rubin et al. 2018).
Paper: Noble Gas Planetology and the Xenon Clouds of Uranus
Authors: Kevin Zahnle
Figure caption: A schematic ternary plot of Xe in the solar system. The three vertices—solar, PSG, and comet P67/C-G—represent isotopic anomalies that can only be explained by distinct nucleosynthetic reservoirs. Earth’s birth Xe (U-Xe) is of mixed parentage. Data for enstatite chondrite (EC; S. Oman), aubrite (Pesyanoe), and AVCC are from Pepin (1991); the ureilite and Phase Q are from Busemann et al. (2000); Mars is from Péron & Mukhopadhyay (2022). All reservoirs other than P67/C-G have been corrected for evident mass fractionation. Jupiter is extremely uncertain but intriguing.
Paper: Noble Gas Planetology and the Xenon Clouds of Uranus
Authors: Kevin Zahnle
Figure caption: Some possible pathways to concentrating supervolatile elements in gas giants. These are described in the text. In the figure, argon serves as a proxy for all the supervolatile elements.
Paper: Parent Volatile Outgassing Associations in Cometary Nuclei: Synthesizing Rosetta Measurements and Ground-based Observations
Authors: Mohammad Saki, Dennis Bodewits, Boncho P. Bonev, Neil Dello Russo, Adrienn Luspay-Kuti, John W. Noonan, Michael. R. Combi, Yinsi Shou
Figure caption: Variations seen in the correlation factor (R 2) of the average production rates of each parent species as measured at different epochs (see Table 2). (A) With respect to H2O. (B) With respect to CO2. Data are taken from Läuter et al. (2020), who present average, highest, and lowest production rate values taken at different R h ranges. Regions were designated as strong (R 2 > 0.9), good (0.9 > R 2 > 0.8), moderate (0.8 > R 2 > 0.5), and weak (R 2 > 0.5) correlation.
Paper: Parent Volatile Outgassing Associations in Cometary Nuclei: Synthesizing Rosetta Measurements and Ground-based Observations
Authors: Mohammad Saki, Dennis Bodewits, Boncho P. Bonev, Neil Dello Russo, Adrienn Luspay-Kuti, John W. Noonan, Michael. R. Combi, Yinsi Shou
Figure caption: The overall low correlation between CO2 and H2O (R 2 = 0.48). Data are the production rates based on ROSINA measurements from 2014 August to 2016 September taken from Läuter et al. (2020). The color bar shows the log of C2H6 production rates (another volatile that is systematically observed in comets and has been used as a base for volatile mixing ratios) during the entire mission. Each circle represents the average values within each measurement, while the error bars show the highest and lowest production rates within the same measurement.
Paper: Parent Volatile Outgassing Associations in Cometary Nuclei: Synthesizing Rosetta Measurements and Ground-based Observations
Authors: Mohammad Saki, Dennis Bodewits, Boncho P. Bonev, Neil Dello Russo, Adrienn Luspay-Kuti, John W. Noonan, Michael. R. Combi, Yinsi Shou
Figure caption: ROSINA measurement of production rates of H2O, CO2, and sulfur-bearing molecules plotted against days around perihelion. Note how the sulfur-bearing molecules better follow H2O in preperihelion and CO2 in postperihelion. The error bars indicate the highest and lowest values, while the points indicate the average values within those measurements (see Läuter et al. 2020 for details).
Paper: Parent Volatile Outgassing Associations in Cometary Nuclei: Synthesizing Rosetta Measurements and Ground-based Observations
Authors: Mohammad Saki, Dennis Bodewits, Boncho P. Bonev, Neil Dello Russo, Adrienn Luspay-Kuti, John W. Noonan, Michael. R. Combi, Yinsi Shou
Figure caption: Sulfur-bearing species mixing ratio correlation factor with respect to H2O and CO2 (e.g., OCS/CO2 vs. H2O/CO2 percentage).