ner_tags: O O O O O B-Wavelength I-Wavelength I-Wavelength I-Wavelength 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 I-Citation I-Citation O O O O B-Wavelength I-Wavelength I-Wavelength I-Wavelength I-Wavelength O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Wavelength I-Wavelength I-Wavelength I-Wavelength I-Wavelength 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-Formula I-Formula I-Formula B-Wavelength O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula O O O O O O B-Survey O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O B-Wavelength I-Wavelength O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Wavelength I-Wavelength I-Wavelength I-Wavelength I-Wavelength I-Wavelength O O O O O B-Wavelength I-Wavelength I-Wavelength I-Wavelength I-Wavelength O O B-Survey O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O B-Survey O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Wavelength I-Wavelength O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Wavelength I-Wavelength I-Wavelength I-Wavelength 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 B-Citation I-Citation I-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 B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O B-Wavelength I-Wavelength I-Wavelength I-Wavelength I-Wavelength 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 I-Citation I-Citation O O O O B-Wavelength I-Wavelength I-Wavelength I-Wavelength I-Wavelength O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O B-Wavelength I-Wavelength I-Wavelength I-Wavelength I-Wavelength O O B-Survey O O O O O B-Wavelength I-Wavelength I-Wavelength I-Wavelength I-Wavelength O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation 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 B-Citation I-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 B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation 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-Wavelength O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O B-Wavelength I-Wavelength I-Wavelength I-Wavelength I-Wavelength O O O O O O O O B-Wavelength I-Wavelength I-Wavelength I-Wavelength I-Wavelength O O O O O O O O O O O
tokens: CO is determined from the CO (2 − 1) emission by assuming a luminosity ratio of and α CO . Using the and 3σ for non-detections from table 6 in Boogaard et al. ( 2020 ), we estimate the α [C i ](1 − 0) with both molecular gas masses, and present in Table 6 and Fig. 8 with the coloured diamonds. Figure 8. α [C i ](1 − 0) as a function of metallicity. The black and red symbols represent each detections and 0.1 bin values for our sample. The blue boxes represent samples of high-redshift ( z = 1.9−3.4) gamma-ray burst and quasar molecular gas absorbers from Heintz Watson ( 2020 ) with , and the black line shows their best-fitting linear relation of logα [C i ](1 − 0) = −1.13 × log(Z/Z ⊙ ) + 1.33. The orange and green diamonds are ASPECS galaxies from Boogaard et al. ( 2020 ) with molecular gas masses estimated based on CO luminosity and 1.2 mm dust-continuum emission on the Rayleigh–Jeans tail, respectively. Table 6. The adopted redshift, molecular gas mass, [C i ] (1 − 0) luminosity, metallicity, and derived α [C i ](1 − 0) for the ASPECS galaxy. Note . Columns (1)–(5) are adopted from Boogaard et al. ( 2020 ). (1) and (2) are ASPECS ID and redshift, respectively. Column (3) is molecular gas mass that estimates via the 1.2 mm dust-continuum emission on the Rayleigh–Jeans tail, and (4) is the molecular gas mass determined from the CO (2 − 1) emission assuming a luminosity ratio of and α CO (see table 5 in Boogaard et al. 2020 ). Both of the molecular gas masses from Boogaard et al. ( 2020 ) include a factor of 1.36 to account for heavy elements. Column (5) lists the with 3σ for the non-detections (see table 6 in Boogaard et al. 2020 ). The α [C i ](1 − 0) in columns (6) and (7) are estimated based on molecular gas masses of M mol, RJ and M mol, CO , respectively. The metallicity in column (8) is adopted from Boogaard et al. ( 2019 ). Though our derived α [C i ](1 − 0) shows almost flat with metallicity, they distribute next to the relation of Heintz Watson ( 2020 ) as seen in Fig. 8 , and similar with the α [C i ](1 − 0) result of ASPECS galaxies as well [the α [C i ](1 − 0) values in both Heintz Watson 2020 and Boogaard et al. 2020 include a factor of 1.36 to correct the helium and heavier elements]. The metallicity in our sample mainly focuses in the range of , whereas the metallicity of the sample in Heintz Watson ( 2020 ) covers two orders of magnitude in the ranges of , which is mostly smaller than our sample. Various studies suggest that α CO increases with decreasing metallicity, turning up sharply below metallicity of (Wolfire, Hollenbach McKee 2010 ; Bolatto, Wolfire Leroy 2013 ) where CO is easily photodissociated, whereas H 2 is self-shields or is shielded by dust from UV photodissociation, and becoming shallower near subsolar metallicity (Glover Mac 2011 ; Tacconi et al. 2018 ). The flat profile between α [C i ](1 − 0) with metallicity in our sample presents that α [C i ](1 − 0) might be similar to α CO and has a fairly shallow