ner_tags: O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O B-CelestialObject I-CelestialObject O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-CelestialObject I-CelestialObject O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Survey O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation O O O B-Wavelength O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O B-Survey O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-CelestialObject I-CelestialObject O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O B-CelestialObject I-CelestialObject O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-CelestialObject I-CelestialObject O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-CelestialObject I-CelestialObject O O O O O O O O O O O B-Wavelength I-Wavelength O B-Wavelength I-Wavelength O O O O O O O O O O O B-CelestialObject O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-CelestialObject O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-CelestialObject I-CelestialObject O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-CelestialObject I-CelestialObject O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-CelestialObject I-CelestialObject O B-CelestialObject I-CelestialObject O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation
tokens: for VLM stars and BDs have high uncertainties at ages younger than 1 Myr ( Baraffe et al. 2002 ), we assumed an age of 1 Myr for [GKH94] 41. The temperature of 2795 K then corresponds to a mass of 41 . If the uncertainty of 1.5 subclasses in the spectral type is taken into account, a possible mass range for [GKH94] 41 is from 14 to 97 . We also calculated the luminosity of the source itself (without any contribution from its surrounding envelope) to constrain the mass range. We first dereddened the 2MASS -band magnitude () using the extinction law with ( Mathis 1990 ) and the visual extinction ( Bulger et al. 2014 ). The value was obtained from the best-fit atmospheric model (see Bulger et al. 2014 and references therein) over the 2MASS bands. Using the bolometric correction in -band versus spectral type relation as given in Filippazzo et al. (2015) , we derived a luminosity of 0.025 . Figure 3 shows the luminosity versus temperature diagram for [GKH94] 41 with the theoretical evolutionary models from Chabrier et al. (2000) and Baraffe et al. (1998) . The location of [GKH94] 41 in the diagram indicates that the upper limit (including the uncertainties) to its current mass is just above the substellar limit and below 0.09 , which is consistent with the upper limit value of 97 estimated above. We therefore conclude that the upper limit to the mass of [GKH94] 41 is in the range of 1497 . Second, we estimated the envelope mass of [GKH94] 41 based on the modeling of a modified blackbody with fluxes from 70 m to mm wavelengths (Table 2 ) as used to estimate the envelope mass of IC348-SMM2E (see Palau et al. 2014 ). We obtain the dust temperature , dust emissivity and envelope mass by searching these three parameters minimizing the in the following ranges: from 10 K to 40 K, from 0.1 to 1.8 and from 1 to 60 . We assumed a dust opacity coefficient dependence on wavelength with , cm g (see Palau et al. 2014 and references therein) and a gas-to-dust ratio of 100. The best fit (Fig. 4 ) then gives = 34 K, = 2 , and = 0.4. The obtained dust emissivity index value is significantly lower than the typical value of about 1.4 for class I objects in Taurus ( Chandler et al. 1998 ). This is probably because the best fit is obtained from only three available data points. If we take = 1.4 and = 34 K, we obtain an envelope mass of 8 , a factor of 4 higher than the value estimated from the fitting. We therefore take the final mass of [GKH94] 41 to be 49 , which the sum of the current mass (41 ) and the envelope mass (8 ). If the uncertainty in the spectral type is taken into account, this upper limit will be 49. As the outflow process also ejects accreting material and dissipates material in the envelope, the final mass of [GKH94] 41 thus will very likely be below the substellar limit. Fig. 3 H-R diagram for [GKH94] 41 and IRAS 04191+1523B. Isochrones and mass tracks from the theoretical evolutionary models of Chabrier et al. (2000) for and Baraffe et al.