Dark Dragon Breaks Magnetic Chain: Dynamical Substructures of IRDC G28.34 Form in Supported Environments

One question to be addressed is how the small-scale magnetic field is correlated with the large-scale magnetic field (e.g., Li et al., 2009; Zhang et al., 2014; Li et al., 2015a). To study this, we first compare the JCMT magnetic field orientation ($\theta_{\mathrm{JCMT}}$) in every pixel of the JCMT detection area (S/N($PI$)$>$2) with the Planck magnetic field orientation ($\theta_{\mathrm{Planck}}$) at the nearest pixel of the Planck map and calculate their angular difference with approaches similar to Zhang et al. (2014). Figure 3 overlays the magnetic field orientations revealed by Planck and JCMT. Figure 4(a) shows the spatial distribution of the absolute angular difference between the Planck and JCMT magnetic field orientations. Figure 5(a) shows the histogram of the absolute angular difference between the Planck and JCMT magnetic field orientations. Although overall there is no strong relation between the Planck and JCMT magnetic field orientations (Figure 5(a)), the spatial distribution for their angular difference is not random (as mentioned above and see Figure 4(a)). The difference between global and local statistics signifies the importance of investigating the local distributions of the angular difference. Thus, we further investigate the relation between the cloud- and clump-scale averaged magnetic fields (e.g., Li et al., 2009). To do this, we average the Planck polarization data (i.e., $Q$ and $U$) toward the cloud within a circle of 10 pc and the JCMT polarization detection toward each clump within a circle of 1 pc, and recalculate the polarization position angles. We find that half of the clumps (MM1, MM2, MM11, MM16, and MM17) within our studied region have averaged magnetic fields aligned within 30$\arcdeg$ of the cloud-scale magnetic field, while the other half of the clumps (MM4, MM6, MM9, MM10, and MM14) have averaged magnetic fields misaligned at 60$\arcdeg$-90$\arcdeg$ with respect to the cloud-scale magnetic field (see Figure 5(b)). The bimodal distribution implies that the clump-scale magnetic field is organized with respect to the uniform cloud-scale Planck field. Otherwise, a randomly-orientated small-scale magnetic field cannot produce the observed bimodal distribution (Zhang et al., 2014). Future larger-sample observational studies are required to understand whether the bimodal distribution for angular differences between cloud- and clump-scale averaged magnetic fields is ubiquitous, and future theoretical and numerical studies will be needed to understand the physical mechanism behind this bimodal distribution.

Similarly, we investigate the angular difference between the polarization position angles revealed by JCMT and ALMA. Figures 4(b) and 5(b) show the spatial distribution and histogram, respectively, for the angular difference between the JCMT and ALMA magnetic field orientations toward MM4. The local spatial distribution of the angular difference (Figure 4(b)) is complex and we refrain from describing them in detail. The histogram of angular difference (Figure 5(c)) shows that the magnetic field on scales of cores and condensations in MM4, as revealed by ALMA, is preferentially aligned with the clump-scale magnetic field revealed by JCMT. We further compare the averaged clump-scale and core-scale magnetic fields for core1$-$5 in MM4. To calculate the averaged magnetic fields of cores, we adopt the core positions in Zhang et al. (2009) and average the polarization detections of each core within a radius of 0.1 pc in a way similar to the derivation of the averaged clump-scale magnetic fields. We find that most cores (i.e., core1, 2, 4, and 5) have averaged magnetic fields aligned within 20$\arcdeg$ of the clump-scale magnetic field of MM4 (see Figure 5(d)). The preservation of magnetic field orientation could suggest that the magnetic field plays a crucial role in the collapse of this clump and in the formation of dense cores within (Li et al., 2015b). The clump-scale magnetic field is perpendicular to the chain of cores in MM4, which could suggest that the fragmentation in this clump is regulated by the magnetic field in the parental clump (Nakamura & Li, 2008). We refrain from comparing the averaged condensation-scale magnetic fields with large-scale magnetic fields in MM4 because the fragmentation in this clump at condensation level is complex (Zhang et al., 2015; Kong, 2019). On the other hand, the marginal polarization detection in MM9 does not support any statistics. With a rough comparison, we find that the angle between the clump-scale magnetic field of MM9 and the condensation-scale magnetic field in C1-Sa is $\sim$65$\arcdeg$.

For the dense cores revealed by ALMA observations, we estimate the dust mass with

where $F_{\mathrm{\nu}}$ is the flux density at frequency $\nu$, $d$ is the distance, $\kappa_{\nu}=(\nu/1\mathrm{THz})^{\beta}$ is the dust opacity (Hildebrand, 1983) in m${}^{2}$ kg${}^{-1}$, and $B_{\nu}(T)$ is the Planck function at temperature $T$. We adopt a dust emissivity index ($\beta$) of $\sim$1.5 (e.g., Beuther et al., 2007; Chen et al., 2007) and a gas temperature of 15 K (Wang, 2018). Adopting a gas-to-dust ratio of $\Lambda=100$ (Savage & Jenkins, 1972), the gas mass can be estimated with $M_{\mathrm{gas}}=\Lambda M_{\mathrm{dust}}$. Then the gas column density is estimated with

where $\mu_{\mathrm{H_{2}}}=2.8$ is the mean molecular weight per hydrogen molecule (Kauffmann et al., 2008), $m_{\mathrm{H}}$ is the atomic mass of hydrogen, and $A$ is the area.

We adopt the column density map (hereafter the COMB map) at intermediate scales from Lin et al. (2017). The COMB map was made by performing an iterative SED fitting procedure for multi-wavelength (70 $\mu$m to 850 $\mu$m) continuum data from Herschel, Caltech Submillimeter Observatory (CSO), JCMT, and Planck, using image combination techniques to recover extended emission for ground-based telescopes while preserving the high angular resolution. Details about basic data combinations and SED fitting procedures can be found in Lin et al. (2016). In particular, we used an updated combination procedure similar to Jiao et al. (2022), where the Planck map is first deconvolved based on an extrapolated model image. The updated combined image benefits from a better dynamical range to recover more extended emissions. The resolution of the resulting column density maps is 10$\arcsec$. The size of the COMB map is $\sim$600$\arcsec$ ($\sim$7 pc). With the column density map, the gas mass is derived using Equation 3.

For the environmental gas surrounding IRDC G28.34, we calculate the gas column density from the Planck $\tau_{353}$ map and the FCRAO-14m ${}^{13}$CO (1-0) data.

For the Planck data, we convert $\tau_{353}$ to the column density of hydrogen atoms ($N_{\mathrm{H}}$) with the relation (Planck Collaboration et al., 2014, 2016)

Note that $N_{\mathrm{H}}$ accounts for the column density of both the atomic gas and molecular gas (Planck Collaboration et al., 2014, 2016) along the line of sight (LOS). The gas mass is given by

where we assume the mean atomic weight per hydrogen atom is $\mu_{\mathrm{H}}\sim 1.4$.

For the ${}^{13}$CO (1-0) data, we estimate the integrated line intensity with $W_{\mathrm{13CO}}=\Sigma_{i}^{N_{\mathrm{ch}}}I_{i}\Delta v_{\mathrm{ch}}$, where $I_{i}$, $\Delta v_{\mathrm{ch}}$, and $N_{\mathrm{ch}}$ are the line intensity, channel width, and the number of integrated channels, respectively. The ${}^{13}$CO (1-0) line is integrated between 71 and 86 km s${}^{-1}$ to cover the main velocity component of the cloud (Beuther et al., 2020). Because the ${}^{13}$CO (1-0) line peak brightness temperature is much smaller than the gas temperature, this line is very likely optically thin (Beuther et al., 2020). In the optically thin case, the upper state column density is given by (Goldsmith & Langer, 1999)

where $k_{B}$, $h$, and $A_{ul}$ are the Boltzmann constant, Planck constant, and Einstein coefficient, respectively. Assuming local thermal equilibrium, the total column density of ${}^{13}$CO is given by

where $g_{\mathrm{u}}$, $E_{\mathrm{u}}$, and $Z$ are the statistical weight of the upper state, the upper energy level, and the partition function, respectively. Here we adopt $T=15$ K as well. The values of $A_{ul}$, $g_{\mathrm{u}}$, $E_{\mathrm{u}}$, and $Z$ are adopted from the CDMS (Müller et al., 2001) and LAMDA (Schöier et al., 2005) databases. Thus, the column density of H${}_{2}$ can be estimated using the standard abundance (Wilson et al., 2013)

The standard abundance is only valid when $N_{H_{2}}<5\times 10^{21}$ cm${}^{-2}$ and could present a scatter of factor two to five (Wilson et al., 2013). Because CO isotopes could be depleted in dark clouds (Bergin & Tafalla, 2007), $N_{H_{2}}$ toward IRDC G28.34 estimated with ${}^{13}$CO may only be a lower limit. With the estimated gas column density, the gas mass is derived with Equation 3.

We find that the ratio between $0.5N_{\mathrm{H}}$ estimated with the Planck $\tau_{353}$ map and $N_{H_{2}}$ estimated with the ${}^{13}$CO data is $\sim$10 toward the center of G28.34. Their ratio gradually increases to $\sim$10${}^{3}$ toward the edge of the Planck map. As the Planck observations trace all the atomic and molecular gases along the LOS, it is reasonable that the column density traced by Planck should be higher than the molecular gas integrated within a specific velocity range. On the other hand, the systematic lower gas column densities of ${}^{13}$CO might be due to the ${}^{13}$CO depletion, the FCRAO-14m observation filtering out the large-scale emission at the extent of the off-position, and the uncertainties in the adopted ${}^{13}$CO abundance.

The mass-radius ($M-r$) and density-radius ($n-r$) relations are important properties of star formation regions (Larson, 1981). With the estimated column density and gas mass, we investigate the $M-r$ and $n-r$ relations for the cores and clumps in IRDC G28.34 and in its surrounding gas.

With the gas mass derived from the Planck $\tau_{353}$ map and from the FCRAO-14m ${}^{13}$CO (1-0) data, we obtain the mass profile for the environmental gas within circles of different radii (from beam size to 20 pc) centered at G28.34. With the COMB mass map, we obtain the mass profile for each infrared dark clump within circles of different radii (from beam size to 2 pc) centered at the local continuum peak. For simplicity, we only consider clumps with both molecular line detection and sufficient dust polarization detection (i.e., MM4, MM6, MM9, MM10, and MM14) in our analysis. MM10 and MM14 are unseparated at the resolution of the COMB map and are thus considered as one clump in our analysis. We also obtain a mass estimation for the whole COMB map area ($r\sim$7 pc). At the resolution of ALMA, the fragmentation status is complicated in MM4 and MM9. Thus, we only report the total mass and effective radius ($\sqrt{A/\pi}$) for the ALMA area with S/N($I$)$>$5. Similarly, we obtain the profile for the average column density within circles of different radii. Assuming the studied structures are spherical, the average number density is estimated from the average column density with $n=0.75N/r$.

Figure 6(a) shows the obtained mass-radius relation. An obvious trend is that the mass and radius for the ALMA data and the COMB data are positively correlated. With a simple minimum chi-squared power-law fit, we obtain $M\propto r^{1.59\pm 0.14}$. Here we assume an uncertainty of a factor of 2 for the mass during the fitting. The ALMA data for MM4 is higher than the fitted power law, which might be due to the deviation from the assumed spherical structure in this clump. The fitted power law is higher than the empirical threshold for massive star formation ($M_{lim}=870M_{\odot}(r/pc)^{1.33}$, Kauffmann et al., 2010), indicating that IRDC G28.34 is potentially forming massive stars. The obtained power-law index of 1.59 is smaller than the value of 1.9 reported by Larson (1981). Note that our $M-r$ relation presents the relation in an individual cloud, while Larson’s third law presents the relation for an ensemble of cloud samples, so the two relations may not be comparable. The mass derived from the Planck map is higher than the fitted power law, while the mass derived from the FCRAO-14m ${}^{13}$CO data is lower than the fitted power law. As discussed in Section 3.2.3, this deviation might be because the molecular mass is overestimated by the Planck map and underestimated by the FCRAO-14m ${}^{13}$CO data.

Figure 6(b) shows the obtained average number density-radius relation. With a power-law fit for the ALMA data and the COMB data, we obtain $n\propto r^{-1.41\pm 0.14}$. Here we assume an uncertainty of a factor of 2 for the density during the fitting. The obtained power-law index of -1.41 is steeper than the value of -1.1 reported by Larson (1981). Similarly, our $n-r$ relation in an individual cloud may not be comparable to Larson’s third law which presents the relation for an ensemble of cloud samples.

Figures 7 and 8 show the multi-scale velocity structure surrounding and within G28.34. The FCRAO-14m ${}^{13}$CO (1-0) data (see Figure 7(a)) reveals a velocity gradient across Galactic latitudes near G28.34 (Beuther et al., 2020). The origin of this global gradient is still unclear. At higher resolution, the JCMT ${}^{13}$CO (3-2) data reveals a velocity gradient perpendicular to the main dark filament (see Figure 7(b)) that is consistent with the global velocity gradient. Previous studies have interpreted this gradient as gas flows converging at the position of the filament (Beuther et al., 2020). The origin of the converging flow may be related to gravitationally driven collapse or external compression (Beuther et al., 2020). The HCO${}^{+}$ (4-3) line with a higher critical density than the ${}^{13}$CO (3-2) transition reveals the velocity structure of most clumps in G28.34 except for MM17 (see Figure 7(c)). Within the dark filament, the higher-density gas traced by the HCO${}^{+}$ (4-3) line is more redshifted than the lower-density gas traced by the ${}^{13}$CO (3-2) transition. With the NH${}_{3}$ observations, Zhang et al. (2015) have identified a longitudinal velocity gradient of 0.6 km s${}^{-1}$ along the main dark filament from MM10 to MM14 to MM4, which reverses from MM4 to MM9. This velocity gradient is also seen in the JCMT ${}^{13}$CO (3-2) and HCO${}^{+}$ (4-3) data. Toward MM1, there seems to be a north-south velocity gradient deviating from the trend of the large-scale gradient, which may be an indicator of local gravitational infall in this clump. At smaller scales, the variation of $V_{c}$ is overall small in dense cores in MM4 and MM9 as seen by the ALMA N${}_{2}$D${}^{+}$ (3-2) observations. There is a redshifted velocity component toward the streamer-like continuum structure in the north of MM4-core5, which may indicate that the core is accreting gas from the clump gas through the streamer. There is a possible sign of a redshifted velocity component in the north of C1-N. Other than these redshifted velocity components, there are no apparent signs of ordered velocity gradients in the major part of cores in MM4 and MM9.

Here we use the velocity dispersion-radius ($\sigma_{v}-r$) relation and velocity centroid dispersion-radius ($\sigma_{c}-r$) relation to explore the multi-scale velocity statistics in G28.34.

In a similar way to the derivation of the $M-r$ relation (Section 3.2.4), we derive the $\sigma_{v}-r$ relation for the average spectra (see Appendix B) of each line within circles of different radii, except for the ALMA data where the spectra are averaged within the whole emission area. Similar to the approaches that most previous studies have adopted, we fit a single-component Gaussian profile for each line to obtain the Full Width at Half Maximum (FWHM. i.e., linewidth). The relation between the FWHM and velocity dispersion is $FWHM=\sqrt{8\ln{2}}\sigma_{v}$. For the JCMT data, we focus on the infrared dark clumps MM4, MM6, MM9, and MM10 (+MM14). The thermal velocity linewidth ($<$0.06 km s${}^{-1}$ for our studied molecules) is much smaller than the non-thermal linewidth in our studied regions due to the low temperature, so we regard the total linewidth as the non-thermal linewidth and do not subtract the thermal contribution. It should be noted that the radius of each considered region does not necessarily reflect the corresponding spatial scale of the measured linewidth. This is because the linewidth is also dependent on the LOS depth, which cannot be easily determined from observations. As we only fit a single-component Gaussian profile for all the lines, the linewidth in some regions could be broadened by the superposition of substructures with different LOS local-standard-of-rest (LSR) velocities at small scales (i.e., indistinguishable multiple velocity components in the line profiles. See Appendix B). Due to these effects, the measured linewidth from the observed spectra likely presents the upper limit of the true non-thermal linewidth at the corresponding scale of the radius.

Figure 9(a) shows the velocity dispersion-radius relation. At first glimpse, it is obvious that the $\sigma_{v}-r$ relations from different instruments and lines are not continuous. The discontinuity of $\sigma_{v}-r$ relation is similar to what Peretto et al. (2023) have recently found in a large sample of 27 infrared dark clouds. While Peretto et al. (2023) interpreted the discontinuous $\sigma_{v}-r$ relation as clump dynamics decoupling from those of the parental clouds, we suggest that the discontinuity is more likely due to the fact that the physical conditions traced by different line data are different and that the $\sigma_{v}-r$ relation does not correctly present the true velocity dispersion-size relation of the gas in 3D.

As seen in Figure 9(a), the $\sigma_{v}-r$ relation for each region seems to be relatively flat with small slopes or even negative slopes for the single-dish (FCRAO-14m and JCMT) observations. The flat slopes suggest that our measured velocity dispersion is likely dominated by the LOS integration up to the largest depth of the gas traced by specific lines, which is similar to what was found in the low-mass cloud Polaris Flare (Ossenkopf & Mac Low, 2002). The JCMT velocity dispersions are lower than the FCRAO-14m ${}^{13}$CO (1-0) velocity dispersions. This might be due to the higher $n_{c}$ of the ${}^{13}$CO (3-2) and HCO${}^{+}$ (4-3) lines, which trace fewer substructures along the LOS. On the other hand, the single-dish observations filter out the diffuse emission at the extent of the off position. The particular JCMT observations may have set a nearer off position than the FCRAO-14m observations, which could filter out more diffuse emissions and is also plausible to account for the lower velocity dispersions revealed by JCMT. For the JCMT observations, the velocity dispersions of HCO${}^{+}$ (4-3) are lower than that traced by ${}^{13}$CO (3-2), which might be due to the higher $n_{c}$ and fewer LOS substructures traced by HCO${}^{+}$ (4-3). In addition, the ALMA velocity dispersions are much lower than those traced by JCMT and FCRAO-14m, which may mainly be because the emissions from lower-density substructures are filtered out by the interferometric observations.

We also study the scaling relation of velocity fields with the dispersion (i.e., standard deviation) of velocity centroids ($\sigma_{c}$). The velocity centroid is insensitive to thermal broadening and thus primarily reveals non-thermal motions (Lazarian et al., 2022). Moreover, velocity centroids present averaged statistics along the LOS and are not affected by the broadening effect of LOS depth as for the linewidth. Thus the radius in the $\sigma_{c}-r$ relation correctly reflects the true scale in the scaling relation. Due to the LOS averaging, for a single-component turbulent structure, the turbulent velocity centroid dispersion is smaller than the turbulent velocity dispersion by a factor of $\sigma_{v}/\sigma_{c}=\sqrt{N_{turb}}=\sqrt{L/\lambda_{c}}$ (Dickman & Kleiner, 1985), where $N_{turb}$ is the number of independent turbulent cells along the LOS, $L$ is the effective depth, and $\lambda_{c}$ is the turbulent correlation length. Previous observational $V_{c}$ studies usually implicitly assume that $N_{turb}$ is constant or does not vary too much within an individual cloud (e.g., Ossenkopf & Mac Low, 2002; Liu et al., 2023b). Considering that each line tracer mainly traces a layer of gas with densities between $n_{c}$ and 100$n_{c}$, the validity of this assumption could be unclear.

Figure 9(b) shows the velocity centroid dispersion-radius relation. The $\sigma_{c}-r$ relation in each region is complex and we refrain from interpreting them in detail in this work. The $\sigma_{c}-r$ relations from different instruments and lines are not continuous as well. The $\sigma_{c}$ in most clumps traced by JCMT is comparable to $\sigma_{c}$ in the environmental gas traced by FCRAO-14m, but lower than the $\sigma_{c}$ of the dense cores traced by ALMA. If $N_{turb}=\sqrt{L/\lambda_{c}}$ is similar for different line data or $N_{turb}$ is larger for higher-resolution data, the observed $\sigma_{c}-r$ relation could suggest that the early-stage massive star formation activities have already increased the non-thermal motions in small-scale and high-density regions in IRDC G28.34. However, we cannot rule out the possibility that the velocity centroid dispersion at a smaller $r$ is less averaged due to a smaller $N_{turb}$.

In summary, we find the velocity statistics are not continuous at different scales revealed by different instruments and lines, nor universal in different regions. However, due to the unsolved issues on the LOS length of linewidth and the averaging of velocity centroids, we cannot rule out the possibility that the actual multi-scale velocity statistics in G28.34 could still follow a continuous and universal power-law relation. Solving those issues requires the application of more advanced analysis methods (e.g., Lazarian & Pogosyan, 2006).

We estimate the magnetic field strength in the environmental gas of IRDC G28.34 with the Planck polarization data and the FCRAO-14m ${}^{13}$CO (1-0) data. As demonstrated later (see Section 3.5.2), the Planck polarization detection toward G28.34 mainly traces the emission from the surrounding gas of this IRDC. Thus it is appropriate to use the Planck polarization map to obtain the magnetic field information of the cloud environment. The radius of the polarization detection region must be $\gtrsim$2 of the beam size to obtain meaningful statistics of the turbulent magnetic field (Liu et al., 2021). Thus we consider a circular region with a radius of $r=$15 pc centered at G28.34. The angular dispersion of the Planck magnetic field is $\sigma_{\theta}=3.9\arcdeg$ within the considered region. The almost straight POS magnetic field lines at 15-pc scale and the small angular dispersion imply $B_{0}\sim B$. As mentioned in Section 3.2.3, the density estimated from the ${}^{13}$CO (1-0) data tends to be underestimated while the density estimated from the Planck map tends to be overestimated. Thus we adopt the density extrapolated from the power-law relation ($n=6398$ cm${}^{-3}(r/\mathrm{pc})^{-1.41}$) fitted from the COMB data and ALMA data. At $r=15$ pc, we obtain $n_{\mathrm{H_{2}}}\sim 144$ cm${}^{-3}$. Similar to the turbulent kinetic field, the turbulent magnetic field as well as its ratio with respect to the ordered or total field could be underestimated by a factor of $\sqrt{N_{B}}$ if there are $N_{B}$ independent magnetic turbulent cells along the LOS (Zweibel, 1990). The 3D unaveraged turbulent magnetic and kinetic fields within the considered region are not directly measurable from observations. As the DCF method assumes equipartition between turbulent magnetic and kinetic energies, it is reasonable to further assume that the turbulent magnetic and kinetic fields are averaged by a similar extent (i.e., $N_{B}\sim N_{turb}$) due to the LOS signal integration. Although $N_{turb}$ and $N_{B}$ may not be accurately measured from our observational data, the corrections of the LOS signal integration effect for the turbulent kinetic field (as traced by $\sigma_{c}$) and turbulent magnetic field (as traced by $\sigma_{\theta}$) could cancel out with $(\sqrt{N_{turb}}\sigma_{c})/(\sqrt{N_{B}}\sigma_{\theta})=\sigma_{c}/\sigma_{\theta}$ (Cho & Yoo, 2016). Within our studied region, the velocity centroid dispersion is $\sigma_{c}=0.54$ km s${}^{-1}$. Incorporating the correction for the LOS signal integration, the magnetic field strength of the environmental gas within the 15-pc region is given by $B\sim B_{0}\sim\sqrt{\mu_{0}\rho}\sigma_{c}/\sigma_{\theta}\sim 0.074$ mG. Alternatively, using a model with $n_{\mathrm{H_{2}}}\sim 100$ cm${}^{-3}$ and $l=8$ pc, Ostriker et al. (2001) numerically investigated the uncertainties in the DCF estimation of clouds and derived a correction factor of 0.5 (hereafter the Ost01 correction factor). As the density of their simulation is comparable to that of the region of our interest, we apply the Ost01 correction factor for an alternative magnetic field strength estimation. Adopting $\sigma_{v}=3.93$ km s${}^{-1}$ at $r=15$ pc, we obtain $B\sim B_{0}\sim 0.5\sqrt{\mu_{0}\rho}\sigma_{v}/\sigma_{\theta}\sim 0.27$ mG. Note that the critical density of ${}^{13}$CO (1-0) is an order of magnitude higher than the density of our considered region, so the turbulent velocity dispersion here may be underestimated, which might lead to underestimation of the magnetic field strength as well.

At the considered scale, additional uncertainty on the estimated field strength could come from the anisotropy of MHD turbulence when gravity is negligible (Lazarian et al., 2022). The correction for the turbulence anisotropy requires knowledge of the mean-field inclination and the fraction of turbulence modes. However, both parameters cannot be easily measured with our existing data. Thus we are unable to correct this effect in this work.

Some recent theoretical and numerical studies suggest that in a non-gravitational and very sub-Alfvénic environment, the turbulent kinetic energy is in equipartition with the coupling-term magnetic field energy fluctuation rather than with the turbulent magnetic energy (Federrath, 2016; Skalidis & Tassis, 2021; Beattie et al., 2022), which could bring another uncertainty to the DCF method. However, it has been debated whether their proposed coupling-term energy equipartition is valid for molecular clouds (Lazarian et al., 2022; Li et al., 2022; Liu et al., 2022a, b). Firstly, the physical interpretation for including the coupling-term field in the energy equipartition is unclear. Even if the reference velocity is set as the cloud average velocity, the substructures moving at a different velocity from the cloud average velocity or the ordered non-turbulent motions (e.g., infall or rotation) due to star formation activities could still generate a significant amount of coupling-term velocity field fluctuation within molecular clouds. There is no reason to only consider the coupling-term magnetic field but not consider the coupling-term velocity field. Secondly, all the numerical works supporting the coupling-term energy equipartition have adopted the whole simulation-averaged mean magnetic field, which represents the interstellar medium (ISM) magnetic field at approximately the turbulence injection scale ($\sim$100 pc), in the calculation of the coupling-term magnetic field. While it is probably fine to adopt the global mean field as the local mean field in an extremely sub-Alfvénic case (e.g., $\mathcal{M}_{A}=0.01$, Beattie et al., 2022), the star-forming 10-pc clouds are only trans-to-sub-Alfvénic (e.g., $\mathcal{M}_{A}\gtrsim 0.6$, Hu et al., 2019). In such cases, the 10-pc local mean field could have significantly deviated from the 100-pc global mean field and thus it would be inappropriate to adopt the global mean field of the ISM in the calculation of the cloud energetics. In summary, more work needs to be done to understand the validity of the coupling-term energy equipartition assumption in molecular clouds.

For the dense clumps revealed by JCMT observations, the magnetic field shows non-linear ordered field structures due to gravitational effects and star formation activities, which overestimates the angular dispersion that should be only attributed to turbulence. In G28.34, all clumps have $\sigma_{\theta}>25\arcdeg$ within $r=1$ pc, but using $\sigma_{\theta}$ to estimate $B$ is only valid when $\sigma_{\theta}<25\arcdeg$ in both low and high density regions (Ostriker et al., 2001; Liu et al., 2021). To account for the ordered field contribution, we use the angular dispersion function (ADF) method (Hildebrand et al., 2009; Houde et al., 2009, 2016), a modified DCF method, to estimate the magnetic field strength of these clumps.

The ADF accounting for the ordered field contribution, beam-smoothing effect, and turbulent correlation effect is given by