
==== Front
Nature
Nature
Nature
0028-0836
1476-4687
Nature Publishing Group UK London

36623551
5590
10.1038/s41586-022-05590-4
Article
Early Release Science of the exoplanet WASP-39b with JWST NIRCam
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0973-8426
Ahrer Eva-Maria eva-maria.ahrer@warwick.ac.uk

12
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7352-7941
Stevenson Kevin B. kevin.stevenson@jhuapl.edu

3
Mansfield Megan 4
Moran Sarah E. 5
Brande Jonathan 6
Morello Giuseppe 789
Murray Catriona A. 10
Nikolov Nikolay K. 11
Petit dit de la Roche Dominique J. M. 12
Schlawin Everett 4
Wheatley Peter J. 12
Zieba Sebastian 1314
Batalha Natasha E. 15
Damiano Mario 16
Goyal Jayesh M. 17
Lendl Monika 12
Lothringer Joshua D. 18
Mukherjee Sagnick 19
Ohno Kazumasa 19
Batalha Natalie M. 1920
Battley Matthew P. 12
Bean Jacob L. 21
Beatty Thomas G. 22
Benneke Björn 23
Berta-Thompson Zachory K. 10
Carter Aarynn L. 19
Cubillos Patricio E. 2425
Daylan Tansu 26
Espinoza Néstor 1127
Gao Peter 28
Gibson Neale P. 29
Gill Samuel 2
Harrington Joseph 30
Hu Renyu 3132
Kreidberg Laura 13
Lewis Nikole K. 33
Line Michael R. 34
López-Morales Mercedes 35
Parmentier Vivien 3637
Powell Diana K. 35
Sing David K. 2738
Tsai Shang-Min 36
Wakeford Hannah R. 39
Welbanks Luis 34
Alam Munazza K. 28
Alderson Lili 39
Allen Natalie H. 27
Anderson David R. 12
Barstow Joanna K. 40
Bayliss Daniel 2
Bell Taylor J. 41
Blecic Jasmina 4243
Bryant Edward M. 44
Burleigh Matthew R. 45
Carone Ludmila 24
Casewell S. L. 45
Changeat Quentin 114647
Chubb Katy L. 48
Crossfield Ian J. M. 6
Crouzet Nicolas 49
Decin Leen 50
Désert Jean-Michel 51
Feinstein Adina D. 21
Flagg Laura 33
Fortney Jonathan J. 19
Gizis John E. 52
Heng Kevin 25354
Iro Nicolas 55
Kempton Eliza M.-R. 56
Kendrew Sarah 46
Kirk James 3557
Knutson Heather A. 32
Komacek Thaddeus D. 56
Lagage Pierre-Olivier 58
Leconte Jérémy 59
Lustig-Yaeger Jacob 3
MacDonald Ryan J. 3360
Mancini Luigi 136162
May E. M. 3
Mayne N. J. 63
Miguel Yamila 1464
Mikal-Evans Thomas 13
Molaverdikhani Karan 135365
Palle Enric 7
Piaulet Caroline 23
Rackham Benjamin V. 6667
Redfield Seth 68
Rogers Laura K. 69
Roy Pierre-Alexis 23
Rustamkulov Zafar 38
Shkolnik Evgenya L. 34
Sotzen Kristin S. 338
Taylor Jake 2336
Tremblin P. 70
Tucker Gregory S. 71
Turner Jake D. 33
de Val-Borro Miguel 72
Venot Olivia 73
Zhang Xi 74
1 grid.7372.1 0000 0000 8809 1613 Centre for Exoplanets and Habitability, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
2 grid.7372.1 0000 0000 8809 1613 Department of Physics, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
3 grid.474430.0 0000 0004 0630 1170 Johns Hopkins APL, Laurel, MD USA
4 grid.134563.6 0000 0001 2168 186X Steward Observatory, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ USA
5 grid.134563.6 0000 0001 2168 186X Lunar and Planetary Laboratory, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ USA
6 grid.266515.3 0000 0001 2106 0692 Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS USA
7 grid.17423.33 0000 0004 1767 6621 Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias (IAC), Tenerife, Spain
8 grid.10041.34 0000000121060879 Departamento de Astrofísica, Universidad de La Laguna (ULL), Tenerife, Spain
9 grid.466954.c 0000 0001 2292 9556 INAF- Palermo Astronomical Observatory, Piazza del Parlamento, Palermo, Italy
10 grid.266190.a 0000000096214564 Department of Astrophysical and Planetary Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO USA
11 grid.419446.a 0000 0004 0591 6464 Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore, MD USA
12 grid.8591.5 0000 0001 2322 4988 Département d’Astronomie, Université de Genève, Sauverny, Switzerland
13 grid.429508.2 0000 0004 0491 677X Max Planck Institute for Astronomy, Heidelberg, Germany
14 grid.5132.5 0000 0001 2312 1970 Leiden Observatory, University of Leiden, Leiden, The Netherlands
15 grid.419075.e 0000 0001 1955 7990 NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA USA
16 grid.211367.0 0000 0004 0637 6500 Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA USA
17 grid.419643.d 0000 0004 1764 227X School of Earth and Planetary Sciences (SEPS), National Institute of Science Education and Research (NISER), HBNI, Jatani, India
18 grid.267677.5 0000 0001 2219 5599 Department of Physics, Utah Valley University, Orem, UT USA
19 grid.205975.c 0000 0001 0740 6917 Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, University of California, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA USA
20 grid.205975.c 0000 0001 0740 6917 Astrobiology Program, University of California, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA USA
21 grid.170205.1 0000 0004 1936 7822 Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL USA
22 grid.14003.36 0000 0001 2167 3675 Department of Astronomy, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI USA
23 grid.14848.31 0000 0001 2292 3357 Department of Physics and Institute for Research on Exoplanets, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec Canada
24 grid.4299.6 0000 0001 2169 3852 Space Research Institute, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Graz, Austria
25 grid.436940.c INAF – Osservatorio Astrofisico di Torino, Pino Torinese, Italy
26 grid.16750.35 0000 0001 2097 5006 Department of Astrophysical Sciences, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ USA
27 grid.21107.35 0000 0001 2171 9311 Department of Physics and Astronomy, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD USA
28 grid.418276.e 0000 0001 2323 7340 Earth and Planets Laboratory, Carnegie Institution for Science, Washington DC, USA
29 grid.8217.c 0000 0004 1936 9705 School of Physics, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
30 grid.170430.1 0000 0001 2159 2859 Planetary Sciences Group, Department of Physics and Florida Space Institute, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL USA
31 grid.20861.3d 0000000107068890 Astrophysics Section, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA USA
32 grid.20861.3d 0000000107068890 Division of Geological and Planetary Sciences, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA USA
33 grid.5386.8 000000041936877X Department of Astronomy and Carl Sagan Institute, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY USA
34 grid.215654.1 0000 0001 2151 2636 School of Earth and Space Exploration, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ USA
35 grid.455754.2 0000 0001 1781 4754 Center for Astrophysics | Harvard & Smithsonian, Cambridge, MA USA
36 grid.4991.5 0000 0004 1936 8948 Atmospheric, Oceanic and Planetary Physics, Department of Physics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
37 grid.462572.0 0000 0004 0385 5397 Université Côte d’Azur, Observatoire de la Côte d’Azur, CNRS, Laboratoire Lagrange, Nice, France
38 grid.21107.35 0000 0001 2171 9311 Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD USA
39 grid.5337.2 0000 0004 1936 7603 School of Physics, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
40 grid.10837.3d 0000 0000 9606 9301 School of Physical Sciences, The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK
41 grid.419075.e 0000 0001 1955 7990 BAER Institute, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffet Field, CA USA
42 grid.440573.1 0000 0004 1755 5934 Department of Physics, New York University Abu Dhabi, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
43 grid.440573.1 0000 0004 1755 5934 Center for Astro, Particle and Planetary Physics (CAP3), New York University Abu Dhabi, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
44 grid.83440.3b 0000000121901201 Mullard Space Science Laboratory, University College London, Dorking, UK
45 grid.9918.9 0000 0004 1936 8411 School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
46 grid.419446.a 0000 0004 0591 6464 European Space Agency, Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore, MD USA
47 grid.83440.3b 0000000121901201 Department of Physics and Astronomy, University College London, London, UK
48 grid.11914.3c 0000 0001 0721 1626 Centre for Exoplanet Science, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, UK
49 grid.5132.5 0000 0001 2312 1970 Leiden Observatory, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands
50 grid.5596.f 0000 0001 0668 7884 Institute of Astronomy, Department of Physics and Astronomy, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
51 grid.7177.6 0000000084992262 Anton Pannekoek Institute for Astronomy, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
52 grid.33489.35 0000 0001 0454 4791 Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Delaware, Newark, DE USA
53 grid.5252.0 0000 0004 1936 973X University Observatory Munich, Ludwig Maximilian University, Munich, Germany
54 grid.5734.5 0000 0001 0726 5157 ARTORG Center for Biomedical Engineering, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
55 grid.10420.37 0000 0001 2286 1424 Institute for Astrophysics, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
56 grid.164295.d 0000 0001 0941 7177 Department of Astronomy, University of Maryland, College Park, MD USA
57 grid.7445.2 0000 0001 2113 8111 Department of Physics, Imperial College London, London, UK
58 grid.457334.2 0000 0001 0667 2738 Université Paris-Saclay, Université Paris Cité, CEA, CNRS, AIM, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
59 grid.412041.2 0000 0001 2106 639X Laboratoire d’Astrophysique de Bordeaux, Université de Bordeaux, Pessac, France
60 grid.214458.e 0000000086837370 Department of Astronomy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI USA
61 grid.6530.0 0000 0001 2300 0941 Department of Physics, University of Rome “Tor Vergata”, Rome, Italy
62 INAF - Turin Astrophysical Observatory, Pino Torinese, Italy
63 grid.8391.3 0000 0004 1936 8024 Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
64 grid.451248.e 0000 0004 0646 2222 SRON Netherlands Institute for Space Research, Leiden, The Netherlands
65 grid.510544.1 Exzellenzcluster Origins, Garching, Germany
66 grid.116068.8 0000 0001 2341 2786 Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA USA
67 grid.116068.8 0000 0001 2341 2786 Kavli Institute for Astrophysics and Space Research, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA USA
68 grid.268117.b 0000 0001 2293 7601 Astronomy Department and Van Vleck Observatory, Wesleyan University, Middletown, CT USA
69 grid.5335.0 0000000121885934 Institute of Astronomy, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
70 grid.460789.4 0000 0004 4910 6535 Maison de la Simulation, CEA, CNRS, Univ. Paris-Sud, UVSQ, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
71 grid.40263.33 0000 0004 1936 9094 Department of Physics, Brown University, Providence, RI USA
72 grid.423138.f 0000 0004 0637 3991 Planetary Science Institute, Tucson, AZ USA
73 grid.4444.0 0000 0001 2112 9282 Université de Paris Cité and Univ Paris Est Creteil, CNRS, LISA, Paris, France
74 grid.205975.c 0000 0001 0740 6917 Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, University of California, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA USA
9 1 2023
9 1 2023
2023
614 7949 653658
16 9 2022
24 11 2022
© The Author(s) 2023
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Measuring the metallicity and carbon-to-oxygen (C/O) ratio in exoplanet atmospheres is a fundamental step towards constraining the dominant chemical processes at work and, if in equilibrium, revealing planet formation histories. Transmission spectroscopy (for example, refs. 1,2) provides the necessary means by constraining the abundances of oxygen- and carbon-bearing species; however, this requires broad wavelength coverage, moderate spectral resolution and high precision, which, together, are not achievable with previous observatories. Now that JWST has commenced science operations, we are able to observe exoplanets at previously uncharted wavelengths and spectral resolutions. Here we report time-series observations of the transiting exoplanet WASP-39b using JWST’s Near InfraRed Camera (NIRCam). The long-wavelength spectroscopic and short-wavelength photometric light curves span 2.0–4.0 micrometres, exhibit minimal systematics and reveal well defined molecular absorption features in the planet’s spectrum. Specifically, we detect gaseous water in the atmosphere and place an upper limit on the abundance of methane. The otherwise prominent carbon dioxide feature at 2.8 micrometres is largely masked by water. The best-fit chemical equilibrium models favour an atmospheric metallicity of 1–100-times solar (that is, an enrichment of elements heavier than helium relative to the Sun) and a substellar C/O ratio. The inferred high metallicity and low C/O ratio may indicate significant accretion of solid materials during planet formation (for example, refs. 3,4,) or disequilibrium processes in the upper atmosphere (for example, refs. 5,6).

Time-series observations from the JWST of the transiting exoplanet WASP-39b show gaseous water in the planet’s atmosphere and place an upper limit on the abundance of methane.

Subject terms

Exoplanets
Exoplanets
issue-copyright-statement© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited 2023
==== Body
pmcMain

JWST has demonstrated the necessary precision and wavelength coverage to make bulk characterization of hot exoplanet atmospheres routine7. The JWST director’s discretionary Early Release Science (ERS) programme provides the scientific community with observations of typical targets quickly enough to inform planning for the telescope’s second cycle of scheduled observations. The primary goals of the Transiting Exoplanet Community ERS programme (ERS 1366, led by N. M. Batalha, J. L. Bean and K. B. Stevenson) are to demonstrate instrument capabilities, quickly build community experience and seed initial discovery in transiting exoplanetary science8,9. The Panchromatic Transmission programme observed a single exoplanet, WASP-39b, in transmission using four different instrument modes. It included overlapping wavelength coverage to cross-compare and validate all three near-infrared instruments for time-series observations. The observations presented here form one-quarter of this programme, demonstrating the capacity of the JWST Near-InfraRed Camera (NIRCam) for transiting exoplanet atmospheric characterization.

WASP-39b is a highly inflated exoplanet of roughly Saturn mass, orbiting its G7 main-sequence star with a 4.05-day period10. We selected WASP-39b for its inactive host star and prominent spectroscopic features, which trace the atmospheric composition of the planet. We confirmed the star’s relative inactivity through a photometric monitoring campaign using the Next-Generation Transit Survey (NGTS)11 and Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS)12 (Methods). Reported atmospheric metallicities span a range of possible values (0.003–300× solar)13–18 owing to limits on wavelength coverage, lower signal-to-noise ratio data and/or differences between analyses19–22. If the Solar System trend for gas giants23,24 also applies to exoplanets, WASP-39b should have an atmospheric metallicity comparable to that of Saturn (10× solar25) and other Saturn-mass exoplanets.

We observed a single transit of WASP-39b with JWST’s NIRCam instrument on 22–23 July 2022 (19:28–03:40 ut). The Grism R and F322W2 filter in the long-wavelength (LW) channel dispersed light from 2.420–4.025 µm at a spectral resolution R of 1,570–2,594 over 1,023 resolution elements. The short-wavelength (SW) channel allowed the simultaneous measurement of light, that is photometry, spanning 2.0–2.2 µm using the WLP8 weak lens and F210M filter. See Methods for more details.

The team conducted three independent reductions of the NIRCam LW spectroscopic data and four independent fits and analyses of the reduced data. We also performed two independent analyses of the SW photometric data. For both data reductions (LW and SW), customizing the JWST Science Calibration Pipeline (jwst) to allow for minor adaptations to default steps and values worked best (Methods). The wavelength solution available with the reference files provided by the JWST Calibration Reference Data System at the time of our analysis was inaccurate (particularly for the blue edge of the LW channel), so we redefined our wavelength values using a polynomial wavelength calibration derived from a planetary nebula observed as part of commissioning (programme 1076).

We found no large systematic structures affecting the LW light curves and a minuscule ramp at the start of the SW light curve, see Fig. 1. The only other systematic identified was 1/f noise (or pink noise; where f is frequency), which describes the detector’s correlated read noise26. For NIRCam, this manifests as weak structures in the dispersion direction, as shown in Fig. 1c. We did not correct for 1/f noise in the final LW reduction because it did not impact the precision reached by individual spectroscopic light curves (compare tshirt and Eureka! in Fig. 2 for analyses with and without 1/f noise corrections). We removed structures due to 1/f noise in the SW reduction (Methods). We found that a linear model in time was sufficient to detrend the data, which produced uncertainties 1.18× the photon noise limit (median of 135 ppm for the transit depths) at a binned spectral resolution of 15 nm (about 15 pixels). Similarly, the photometric transit-depth precision was 1.35× the noise limit at 53 ppm. The residuals are Gaussian (Extended Data Fig. 5).Fig. 1 The relative brightness of the WASP-39 planetary system as a function of time and wavelength, as measured by NIRCam.

a–f, Spectroscopic data (a–c) and the photometric (SW) channel (d–f) for the extracted flux normalized by the median stellar spectrum (a,d), the best-fit transit and systematic models (b,e) and the residuals (c,f). The flux decrease results from the transit of exoplanet WASP-39b in front of its star. The subtle variation in transit depth around 2.8 µm is due primarily to water vapour in the planet’s atmosphere. The vertical striping in the residuals is due to 1/f noise.

Fig. 2 The transit spectrum of WASP-39b as measured from JWST’s NIRCam instrument.

The coloured points with 1σ uncertainties depict our independent analyses of the spectroscopic LW channel (2.420–4.025 µm) and photometric SW channel (2.0–2.2 µm) with their respective throughputs shown in grey. All analyses agree with the broadband Spitzer point (black circle, 3.2–4.0 µm). The broad feature centred at 2.8 µm spans 2.5 scale heights (∼2,000 km) and is due primarily to water vapour within WASP-39b’s atmosphere. We note the consistency between analyses in the fine structure.

Source data

Figure 2 shows the independently derived transit spectra and photometry. Each reduction is consistent with our selected reduction (Eureka!) to better than 1σ, as is the broadband 3.6-µm Spitzer point13. The overall shape of the spectrum is due primarily to absorption of water vapour (feature centred at 2.8 µm). The right-axis scale is in equivalent scale heights, where one scale height is approximately 800 km.

To interpret the presence of other molecules within the planetary atmosphere, we compared the Eureka! transit spectrum with a set of independently computed atmospheric model grids that spanned a range of cloud properties, metallicity values and carbon-to-oxygen (C/O) ratios (Methods). Figure 3 shows a representative best-fit model highlighting the contributions of major molecular absorbers.Fig. 3 Contributions of key absorbers impacting the spectrum.

Top: the best-fit PICASO 3.0 equilibrium model (10× solar, C/O = 0.229, moderate grey clouds with cloud optical depth of 2.5 × 10−3) is shown compared with the Eureka! reduction, along with models with individual molecular species removed to show its contribution to the spectrum. Each model is normalized to the data for illustration by offsetting each model to have the same transit depth at 2.8 µm. Water predominately sets the shape of the spectrum, followed by the influence of clouds. The grey dashed line shows a cloudy solar-metallicity and stellar-C/O atmospheric model, illustrating the lack of a strong CH4 peak seen in the data. Bottom: the opacities of the dominant molecular species at an optical depth (τ) of 1 in the atmosphere. In the single best-fit model shown in the bottom panel, the CH4 peak at 3.3 µm is blended out by water absorption. However, manual scaling of CH4 gives an upper limit of CH4 abundance (blue line) for the single best-fit model shown in the top panel.

Source data

Our spectroscopic wavelength range covered by NIRCam/F322W2 includes absorption features due to prominent atmospheric molecules such as water (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4). From our model grid search, we definitively confirm the presence of H2O at nearly 16σ. Water vapour was previously identified in the atmosphere of WASP-39b using the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) Wide Field Camera 3 (WFC3) observations taken at shorter wavelengths ([H2O] = −1.37−0.13+0.05)13. We also see weak evidence for CO2 absorption, previously seen with high confidence using the PRISM mode on the Near InfraRed Spectrograph (NIRSpec) at 4.3 µm (ref. 7), but the overlap between the CO2 feature at 2.8 µm and the broad H2O feature (illustrated in Fig. 3) leads to a more tentative identification here. Each forward model grid prefers significant cloud coverage, which impacts the spectrum at approximately millibar pressures, despite differing cloud parameterizations between grids with varying levels of physical complexity (Methods).

In a hot (about 1,000 K) solar-metallicity atmosphere with a stellar C/O ratio, CH4 would be visible as a strong peak at 3.3 µm (grey dashed line in Fig. 3, and Extended Data Fig. 7) under thermochemical equilibrium. Such a peak is absent in the reduced spectrum. We quantified this using a residual fitting test (Methods). In a higher-metallicity and/or lower-C/O atmosphere, carbon is increasingly partitioned into CO and CO2, and the CH4 peak at 3.3 µm disappears. Therefore, the absence of a strong CH4 peak at 3.3 µm in our data drives the metallicity to higher values and the C/O ratio to lower values. We scaled the CH4 volume mixing ratio within our single best-fit Planetary Intensity Code for Atmospheric Spectroscopy Observations (PICASO) version 3.0 model (10× solar metallicity; C/O ratio of 0.229) to determine an upper limit on the abundance of CH4 at 1 mbar, where it contributes most strongly to the spectrum. Within our single best-fit model scaling, we find an upper limit on CH4 abundance at 1 mbar of 5.5 × 10−5 (or 55 ppm) volume mixing ratio, above which the goodness of fit per free parameter, χν2, gets increasingly worse (that is, χν2>2). We also tested whether other data reductions favoured best-fit models with stronger CH4 abundances, but found they did not have any statistical significance.

Driven by this CH4 upper limit, the single best fit from each grid favours the lowest C/O ratio (0.229, 0.3 and 0.35 for PICASO 3.0, PHOENIX and ATMO, respectively) within that grid. These best-fit point values for C/O from the three grids agree well with the value of 0.31−0.05+0.08 found by ref. 13. We examined the effect of an even lower C/O grid point by computing the best-fit PICASO 3.0 model with a C/O of 0.115, but found no discernible difference in the transit spectrum. Comparing our inferred C/O ratio for WASP-39b’s atmosphere with that of its host star, we see that it is substellar (≤0.35, whereas WASP-39 is 0.46 ± 0.09 (ref. 23)). We also note that the C/O ratio shown here represents the C/O fraction of the planet’s upper atmosphere rather than that of the whole atmosphere, as these NIRCam observations probe approximately the 0.1–10 mbar pressure range. WASP-39b’s temperature–pressure profile is cool enough for the formation of silicate (that is, Obearing) cloud species at depth, which would deplete oxygen from the upper atmosphere and actually increase the C/O ratio aloft compared with the bulk planetary envelope27,28.

Figure 4 compares our best-fit metallicity values, shown as separate O and C abundances, and C/O ratios to previous studies using HST data, as well as results for exoplanets observed at high resolution and Solar System gas giants. The JWST/NIRCam data rule out a super-stellar C/O ratio for WASP-39b. In addition, Fig. 4 demonstrates the capability of JWST to measure the C/O ratios of giant planet atmospheres by observing both O- and C-bearing species, which until now has only been achieved through high-resolution exoplanet observations (for example, refs. 29,30). Similar measurements have been difficult to achieve from HST alone. Even in the Solar System gas giants, such constraints have proved difficult from both remote sensing and in situ missions, as the low temperatures of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune lead to condensation of most O-bearing species (for example, H2O and CO2) at high altitudes, prohibiting accurate measurement of the O abundance (for example, refs. 31,32).Fig. 4 Trends in elemental abundances and C/O ratio with planet mass.

a–c, The abundances of O (a), C (b) and net volatiles (O + C) (c) scaled to stellar values (O* and C*). The grey points in a show HST constraints based on ≥2σ H2O detections, with the grey dashed line showing the best-fit trend from ref. 18. The blue points show all previous estimates of the metallicity of WASP-39b from HST data, offset in mass for clarity13,15–18. The black points and dashed line in b show a fit based on CH4 abundances of Solar System giant planets46–49. Of the Solar System planets, only Jupiter has a constrained O abundance (from Juno observations of H2O (ref. 32)). The gold points indicate high-resolution observations of H2O and CO in exoplanets29,30, and the red stars show the best-fit values for WASP-39b as measured by JWST/NIRCam for each of the three model grids described in this paper. d, The black dashed line depicts the solar C/O ratio of 0.55 (ref. 50) and the blue dotted line with a shaded 1σ uncertainty region indicates the measured C/O ratio of the star WASP-3923. Our results for WASP-39b favour a super-stellar volatile abundance and substellar C/O ratio. However, we emphasize that a full retrieval will be necessary to determine accurate means and 1σ error bars for the NIRCam results.

Source data

The apparent substellar C/O ratio inferred from chemical equilibrium models may trace photochemical processes in the planet’s upper atmosphere. For example, photochemical destruction of CH4 in the upper atmosphere could explain the absence of a CH4 peak at 3.3 µm (for example, refs. 6,33). The most likely immediate products of CH4 photolysis, such as hydrogen cyanide (HCN) or acetylene (C2H2), would be produced in abundances too small (less than or approximately equal to a few parts per million6,33) to be robustly detected with a single NIRCam transit, even from complete CH4 conversion. Alternatively, much of the C available from CH4 photolysis could have been oxidized by photodissociated H2O to form carbon monoxide (CO) and CO2 (refs. 6,33–35), although the absolute abundances of these two C reservoirs would not have been meaningfully altered as their abundances under chemical equilibrium are already higher than that of CH4. Other proposed disequilibrium chemistry processes could reduce the CH4 abundance at the terminator without also decreasing the C/O ratio5,36–39. We defer the exploration of complex disequilibrium models to atmospheric retrieval analyses using the full set of data provided by the Transiting Exoplanet Community ERS programme. That dataset will also constrain the presence of additional O- and C-bearing species to provide a more robust constraint on the C/O ratio than we can obtain here. However, the C/O ratio estimate we report from NIRCam is broadly consistent with the C/O ratio found from the other individual ERS WASP-39b datasets, which range from best fits that are subsolar (Near InfraRed Imager and Slitless Spectrograph (NIRISS)/Single Object Slitless Spectroscopy (SOSS)40; NIRSpec/PRISM 3.0–5.0 µm (ref. 7); NIRSpec/G39541) to a slightly super-solar upper limit (NIRSpec/PRISM 0.5–5.5 µm (ref. 42)).

If disequilibrium chemistry is not prevalent in the planet’s upper atmosphere, the inferred high metallicity and low C/O ratio can be tied back to the formation of WASP-39b. The most prominent scenario is that WASP-39b formed by core accretion exterior to the water-ice line and accreted low-C/O solid material in situ and/or while migrating inwards within the protoplanetary disk4,43,44. Taken as such, JWST observations could offer important clues regarding the degree to which hot-Jupiter atmospheres undergo solid accretion during their early evolution.

Here we have demonstrated the excellent performance of NIRCam for exoplanet transmission spectroscopy. With the first JWST exoplanet spectra now comparable to the first near-infrared Jupiter spectra45, the future promises many exciting discoveries and major advancements in the formation, evolution and atmospheric chemistry of hot Jupiters.

Methods

As part of this article’s Reproducible Research Compendium, located on Zenodo at 10.5281/zenodo.7101283, we provide saved outputs from various pipeline stages and the data used to generate relevant figures, as well as a Jupyter Notebook with step-by-step data reduction instructions replicating our chosen analysis (10.5281/zenodo.7510106).

Photometric monitoring of host star

To confirm that WASP-39 is a relatively inactive star, and that the JWST observations were not adversely affected by stellar activity, we carried out photometric monitoring with the ground-based NGTS11. Monitoring began at the end of April 2022 and continued until late August, spanning the JWST ERS transit observations of WASP-39b in July. We used one camera on most photometric nights to take a series of 10-s images lasting on average for 2 h. The resulting monitoring light curve is plotted in Extended Data Fig. 1 (top), showing one binned point for each night. Also included is the TESS sector 51 Pre-search Data Conditioned Simple Aperture Photometry (PDCSAP) light curve of WASP-3912, which is binned to 2 h to be comparable to NGTS. Both light curves have been detrended against sky brightness. They show evidence for stellar activity, but only with a low amplitude of 0.06% in NGTS.

Also plotted in Extended Data Fig. 1 (bottom) are individual transit observations of WASP-39b with NGTS and TESS (the times of which are indicated on the monitoring light curve). For four of the NGTS transits, we employed multiple cameras. This significantly improves the photometric precision51, which is otherwise limited by atmospheric scintillation52. The transit models were generated from the system parameters listed in Extended Data Table 1. We fit only the transit times and the mutual depth of the TESS transits, which is slightly shallower than expected.

The transit observations in Extended Data Fig. 1 show no evidence for starspot-crossing events, which would be visible as bumps in the transit light curve. The absence of such events across multiple high-precision transits provides additional evidence that WASP-39 is a quiet star and that the JWST ERS transit observations are unlikely to be adversely affected by stellar variability.

JWST NIRCam observation

JWST observed the 2.8-h transit of WASP-39b over a span of 8.2 h, providing a baseline before and after transit to measure transit depths accurately. A dichroic beam splitter allows NIRCam to simultaneously observe a target in both SW and LW channels53,54. The LW channel used the Grism R + F322W2 filter to observe a wavelength range of 2.420–4.025 µm with a spectroscopic resolving power of R ≈ 1,600 at 4 µm (Extended Data Fig. 1, top). The SW imaging channel used the WLP8 weak lens and F210M filter (2.0–2.2 µm) to produce the hexagonal pattern shown in Extended Data Fig. 2 (bottom). Spreading the light prevents saturation, reduces variability owing to image motion over an imperfect flat field and allows monitoring of mirror-segment alignment. Both SW and LW channels used the SUBGRISM256 subarray mode with four output amplifiers and the SHALLOW4 readout pattern to minimize data volume. With 12 groups per integration (82.17 s total), we acquired 366 integrations for this transit observation.

Data reduction and calibration

We conducted independent data analyses using multiple pipelines and fitting tools to ensure that we obtained the same transmission spectrum using different reduction pipelines. We also varied the fitting methods within a given data reduction pipeline.

Many of the reductions presented below used intermediate data products from or made minor edits to the JWST Science Calibration Pipeline (jwst; https://jwst-pipeline.readthedocs.io/), which we briefly summarize here. jwst is a Python software suite for processing data from all JWST instruments and observing modes, and is organized into three stages. Stage 1 takes in uncal.fits files and performs detector-level corrections and ramp fitting for individual exposures (that is, ramps-to-slopes conversion; these ramps are the flux increases during an exposure, not to be confused with baseline ramps over the course of the entire transit). Stage 2 takes in slope images (ramps) from Stage 1 and performs an assignment of the world coordinate system, flat fielding and assignment of a wavelength solution. Stage 3 takes in calibrated two-dimensional images from Stage 2 and extracts a time series of one-dimensional spectra. The default pipeline settings include a flux calibration step at Stage 2. In all data reductions presented below, we skipped that step, as it introduced scatter in the extracted spectral time series. This is justified because the transit depths we compute are relative, rather than absolute, flux measurements.

Below we describe the independent data reductions applied to the SW photometry and LW spectroscopy, respectively. In each case, we note where data reductions deviated from the standard jwst pipeline.

SW photometry

We performed two independent SW data reductions using the open-source Eureka! and tshirt pipelines.

Eureka! SW reduction

Eureka! is an open-source pipeline designed to perform spectral extraction and fitting for JWST exoplanet time-series observations55. The Eureka! SW data reduction used the default jwst settings for stages 1 and 2, with the exception of increasing the rejection threshold during jump detection to 10σ, which improved the quality of the resulting light curve.

In Stage 3, we first masked all pixels for which the ‘DO_NOT_USE’ data quality flag was raised by the jwst pipeline. We then performed an outlier rejection along the time axis for each individual pixel in a segment using a 7σ threshold, repeating this process twice. Next, we corrected for the 1/f noise in each of the four amplifier regions by subtracting the median flux in each row calculated without pixels containing the star. We interpolated over flagged pixels using a cubic function. Finally, we determined the image centre and performed aperture photometry on the target. We explored different target apertures and background annuli, and chose the combination that minimized the root-mean-square variations, leading to a target aperture radius of 65 pixels and a background annulus from 70 pixels to 90 pixels relative to the centre.

tshirt SW reduction

tshirt is an open-source pipeline (https://tshirt.readthedocs.io/en/latest/) that has tools to modify the jwst pipeline and performs  photometric and optimal spectral extraction of light curves.

In the stage 1 SW analysis, tshirt applied a row-by-row, odd/even-by-amplifier (ROEBA) subtraction algorithm that used background pixels to reduce the 1/f noise. In this procedure, background pixels are used to correct each group in a similar fashion to reference pixel correction (https://jwst-pipeline.readthedocs.io/en/latest/jwst/refpix/index.html). The ROEBA correction happens after the bias subtraction step. First, the median of all even columns’ background rates is subtracted from all even columns and the median of all odd columns’ background rates is subtracted from all odd columns to remove most pre-amp reset offsets and odd/even pixel effects. Next, the median of each column’s background rate is subtracted from each row to remove the 1/f noise for timescales longer than a row read time (5.24 ms). The correction was applied to each group so that 1/f noise would not be detected as spurious jumps or cosmic rays by the pipeline. We used all pixels more than 201 pixels from the source to estimate the background and 1/f noise, then subtracted the median of each row from all pixels in that row. Stage 2 of jwst was skipped, as it only changes the rates from analogue-to-digital units (ADU) per second to physical units and conducts flat fielding. This does not affect the relative measurements of the light curve (due to the high pointing precision) and allows for comparison with detector-level effects.

For the photometric extraction, we used a source radius of 79 pixels and a background annulus of 79 pixels to 100 pixels. We performed a two-dimensional Gaussian fit to determine the centre of the aperture.

LW spectroscopy

We performed three independent LW data reductions, using the Eureka!, Atmospheric Transmission Spectroscopy Analysis Code (HANSOLO) and tshirt pipelines.

The reference files in the Calibration Reference Data System at the time of our analysis included a linear solution for wavelength as a function of x coordinate (the dispersion direction), but this is not strictly accurate at the blue end. For all methods, we use commissioning programme 1076 to derive a third-degree polynomial wavelength solution that uses the Pfund and Bracket hydrogen series in the planetary nebula IRAS 05248−7007. The residuals in this solution are ≲0.1 nm and the stellar absorption lines in WASP-39 agree with the solution to within 1 nm. The difference between the corrected wavelengths and the original wavelength solution is almost zero at the red end of the spectrum, but increases to about 50 nm at the blue end.

Eureka! LW reduction

We investigated several variations of the Eureka! LW data reduction to minimize the median absolute deviation (MAD) of the final extracted light curves, with different settings for cosmic-ray jump detection, identifying the spectral trace, the aperture size for spectral extraction, the region for background subtraction and limits for outlier rejection. Here we present details of the data reduction that produced the spectrum shown in the main body of the paper.

Stages 1 and 2 were identical to the jwst pipeline, with the exception of increasing the rejection threshold during jump detection to 6σ. In Stage 3, we first trimmed the data to a subarray extending from pixels 4–64 in the cross-dispersion direction and 4–1,704 in the spectral direction. We then masked any pixels with not a number (NaN) values for the flux or error. We fit the spectral trace with a Gaussian profile and corrected for the curvature of the trace to the nearest integer pixel. We excluded a 14-pixels-wide region on either side of the spectral trace from the background calculation and performed a column-by-column linear fit to subtract the background. We used a double-iteration 7σ threshold for outlier rejection of the sky background along the time axis during background subtraction. In addition, we used a 7σ threshold for outlier rejection during the polynomial fit to the background. To obtain the spectrum, we constructed a normalized spatial profile using the median of all data frames, then used optimal extraction56 on an aperture with a half-width of 9 pixels. For the optimal extraction, we rejected outliers above a 10σ threshold. Extended Data Fig. 3 shows the curvature-corrected, background-subtracted median frame with indicated background and aperture regions.

HANSOLO LW reduction

The HANSOLO pipeline was originally developed to analyse ground-based transmission spectra observed with 8-m-class telescopes57,58 and was adapted to enable its use on NIRCam data. HANSOLO begins with the calibrated rateints.fits outputs of jwst Stage 1.

We used the LACOSMIC algorithm59 to remove cosmic-ray effects from the two-dimensional images and identified the spectral trace using a Moffat function fit to each column. To remove the sky, we fitted and subtracted a linear trend from each column, excluding from the fit a region of 20 pixels on either side of the trace centre. We then extracted the spectrum by summing over an aperture with a half-width of 3 pixels. The spectra from different images were aligned with each other using cross-correlation. To correct outlier pixels, each spectrum was normalized to account for the effect of the transit on the time series. Outliers >3σ away from the mean were removed from the time series of each wavelength point in the normalized spectra and replaced with the median value over time. We then rescaled the spectra to their original amplitudes.

tshirt LW reduction

As with the SW reduction, a few modifications were made to the Stage 1 jwst ramps-to-slopes pipeline. ROEBA subtraction reduced 1/f noise (described above for photometry); however, only pixels 1,847 to 2,044, which are on the rightmost amplifier, are available as low-illumination background.

For Stage 3, tshirt performed optimal spectral extraction weighted by the covariance between pixels26. We used a spectral aperture centred at pixel 34 in the spatial direction with a half-width of 5 pixels. We selected the background region to extend between pixels 5–24 and 44–65 in the spatial direction. The background was fit with a column-by-column linear trend with 3σ clipping. For the spectral extraction, we fit the spatial profile with a cubic spline with 20 knots and an outlier rejection threshold of 30σ. If a pixel was deemed an outlier either by the ‘DO_NOT_USE’ data quality flag or by the spatial profile outlier detection, the rest of the spatial profile was weighted by the reference profile to ensure that the flux was conserved. For the covariance weighting, a correlation of 8% was assumed between pixels as measured by background pixels’ noise properties.

Data analysis and fitting

We used both Eureka! and tshirt to fit the SW light curves. In both cases, the light curves were fit with models that included both the transit and the systematic noise. However, to investigate the effect of different systematic models on the resulting spectra, each fit used a slightly different noise model. Extended Data Table 1 summarizes the systematics models that were used in each SW fit.

For the LW fits, we summed the data into 15 nm bins (about 15 pixels). We experimented with bins as small as 10 nm, but found that reducing the bin size below 15 nm led to poor constraints on the limb darkening and added additional scatter to the resulting spectrum. Extended Data Fig. 4 shows that the noise is primarily Gaussian out to long timescales of order the length of ingress/egress. In addition, we created a white-light curve by summing the extracted spectra over the entire 2.420–4.025 µm wavelength region. We experimented with different wavelength cut-offs but chose to extract spectra in this wavelength region because the low instrument throughput affected the quality of the extracted light curves beyond this region. Extended Data Fig. 5 shows all reduced transmission spectra with one bin added on the blue end and two added on the red end, as well as the relative throughput at the wavelengths of these bins. This figure shows the large error bars derived from data near the edges of the NIRCam/F322W2 bandpass. Therefore, we recommend that future works limit extracted spectra to the wavelength region between 2.420 µm and 4.025 µm.

We fit the LW light curves using four independent pipelines: chromatic-fitting, Eureka!, HANSOLO and tshirt. chromatic-fitting is an open-source (https://github.com/catrionamurray/chromatic_fitting/) Python tool to perform light-curve fitting, built on the data visualizer chromatic (Z. K. Berta-Thompson, manuscript in preparation; https://github.com/zkbt/chromatic/). For this work, chromatic-fitting light-curve fitting was applied to a Eureka! data reduction. As with the SW fits, we fit the LW light curves with models that include different noise parameterizations. Extended Data Table 2 summarizes the systematics models that were used in each LW fit.

For all fits, the parameters were estimated with a Markov chain Monte Carlo fit, using either the emcee Python package60 (for fits performed with Eureka!), the pymc3 Python package61 (implemented through the Exoplanet code62,63, for fits performed with chromatic-fitting or tshirt) or the CONAN Python package57,58 (for fits performed with HANSOLO). The number of free parameters and the resulting differential MADs of the light curves from each fit are also listed in Extended Data Tables 1 and 2. The best-fit parameters from the white-light-curve fits are given in Extended Data Table 3.

In the process of performing the fits to the LW data, we regularly found that the best-fit transmission spectra were shifted vertically for different limb-darkening parameterizations and, for some reductions, exhibited changes in the apparent size of the water feature. In particular, we found that light-curve fits with all limb-darkening coefficients fixed to outputs from ExoTiC-LD64–66 could result in a biased planet spectrum and might present a higher level of time-correlated noise in the residuals. We attribute this to a combination of JWST’s high-precision light curves and deficiencies in the stellar limb-darkening models to accurately represent WASP-3967,68. Therefore, the results presented here use the quadratic limb-darkening law, in its classical form or reparameterized by ref. 69, with one or both coefficients as free parameters. We confirmed that these parameterizations produce transmission spectra that are consistent both with each other and with the spectra resulting from using more complex limb-darkening parameterizations, such as a four-parameter law with either fixed or free parameters70. We therefore recommend that future transmission spectrum analyses with NIRCam use similar methods. Limb-darkening conclusions from the full Transiting Exoplanet Community ERS programme will be discussed further by N. Espinoza et al. (manuscript in preparation).

The final fitted light curves are shown in Extended Data Fig. 6 and the final transmission spectra are shown in Fig. 2. Both the SW and LW datasets are also available in our Reproducible Research Compendium on Zenodo at 10.5281/zenodo.7101283. The median difference between each transmission spectrum and the Eureka! spectrum is 0.87σ (using the maximum error at each point), which demonstrates a remarkable level of agreement. In addition, the residuals showed no evidence for time-correlated noise, as shown in Extended Data Fig. 5.

For ease of interpretation, we compared our atmospheric models with only one transmission spectrum. We selected the Eureka! spectrum, as it was on average nearest the median spectrum (the median transit depth at each bin).

Atmospheric forward modelling

To interpret the LW data from NIRCAM/F322W2, we performed χ2 fits to the transmission spectra using three grids of radiative–convective equilibrium models: ATMO71–73, PHOENIX74–76 and PICASO 3.077,78. All models used a common set of planetary parameters, but had differing opacity sources, cloud treatments and grid points, described in detail below. Each model was binned to the resolution of the data to perform the χ2 fitting. We performed these three independent model grid fits to fully vet our inferences about the atmospheric metallicity and the presence of specific molecular features within the data.

The PICASO 3.0, Vulcan and Virga model grid

Our primary atmospheric model grid is built from the open-source radiative–convective equilibrium code PICASO77, version 3.078, which was developed from the Fortran-based Extrasolar Giant Planet (EGP) model79–81. We used PICASO 3.0 to generate one-dimensional temperature–pressure profiles in thermochemical equilibrium. The base PICASO 3.0 forward model grid computes atmospheric mixing ratios using variations of planetary intrinsic temperatures (Tint) of 100 K, 200 K and 300 K; C/O ratios of 0.229, 0.458, 0.687 and 0.916; and atmospheric solar metallicity values of 0.1×, 0.316×, 1.0×, 3.162×, 10.0×, 31.623×, 50.119× and 100× solar. The PICASO grid assumes full day–night energy redistribution. To compute model transmission spectra from the atmospheric profiles, we used opacities described by ref. 81 (see in particular Extended Data Table 2), which sources H2O from refs. 82,83, CH4 from refs. 84–86, CO2 from ref. 87 and hydrogen sulfide (H2S) from refs. 84,88,89.

We then used the one-dimensional CHON-based chemical kinetics code VULCAN33 and the cloud modelling code Virga90, which is the Python implementation of the Eddysed cloud code91, to post-process disequilibrium chemistry from mixing and photochemical products as well as the effect of clouds. These additional post-processed grids also include vertically constant eddy diffusivities (Kzz) of 105–1011 cm2 s−1 in steps of 2 dex, and both clear and cloudy models. For the Vulcan disequilibrium runs, we computed model grid points for only a select subset of metallicity values (1×, 10×, 50× and 100× solar) and C/O ratios (0.229, 0.458 and 0.687). We found that neither the cloudy nor the clear disequilibrium grids from VULCAN offered an improvement in the χν2 value. Given the sparseness of these pre-computed disequilibrium grid models, we left rigorous quantification of self-consistent disequilibrium chemistry in the atmosphere of WASP-39b to future work.

Within PICASO, clouds are implemented both as grey absorbers and as Mie scatterers using temperature-relevant cloud condensate species from Virga. For the grey clouds, the grid specified a cloud optical depth (τcloud) between 1 bar and 0.1 bar ranging from τcloud = 3.2 × 10−6 to 1 in steps of 0.1 dex across all wavelengths. For clouds of specific condensates, we used Virga to compute log-normal particle size distributions using sedimentation efficiency (fsed) values of 0.6 to 10 for MnS, Na2S and MgSiO3 along the range of Kzz. Smaller sedimentation efficiencies, fsed, with larger eddy diffusivities, Kzz, generated more extended cloud decks and stronger cloud opacity.

The PHOENIX model grid

We also used a grid of atmosphere models from the PHOENIX radiative–convective equilibrium code to fit the data74–76. Similar to the PICASO 3.0 grid, parameters including the day–night energy redistribution factors, interior temperature (200 K and 400 K), bulk atmospheric metallicity (0.1×, 1×, 10× and 100× solar) and C/O ratio (136 grid points from 0.3 to 1) were varied. Aerosol properties were parameterized through a haze factor (0 and 10× multi-gas Rayleigh scattering) and a grey-cloud-deck pressure level (0.3 mbar, 3 mbar and 10 mbar). Models with molecular abundances quenched at 1 bar to simulate vertical mixing were also calculated. The grid also included rainout to account for species sequestered as condensates in the deep atmosphere. Opacities are described by refs. 76,92 and taken from ref. 88.

The ATMO model grid

Similar to the model grids described above, we compared the data to a grid of models from the ATMO radiative–convective–thermochemical equilibrium code71–73,93. The ATMO grid used similar atmospheric and aerosol parameterizations to those used in the PHOENIX grid and also included rainout that accounts for species condensed in the deep atmosphere. Also included are day–night energy redistribution factors (0.25, 0.5, 0.75 and 1; with 1 as full redistribution), atmospheric metallicity (0.1×, 1×, 10× and 100× solar), interior temperature (100 K, 200 K, 300 K and 400 K), C/O ratio (0.35, 0.55, 0.7, 0.75, 1.0 and 1.5), cloud scattering factor (0, 0.5×, 1×, 5×, 10×, 30× and 50× H2 Rayleigh scattering at 350 nm between 1 mbar and 50 mbar pressure levels) and a haze scattering factor (1× and 10× multi-gas Rayleigh scattering). Opacities for H2O, CO2 and CH4 are taken from refs. 83–86 and for H2S from ref. 88.

Grid fits to JWST/NIRCam data

We applied each of our three grids—ATMO, PHOENIX and PICASO 3.0—to fitting the NIRCam F322W2 spectrum (2.4–4.0 µm). In doing so, we found that the models strongly favoured a solar- or super-solar-metallicity atmosphere (1–100× solar), a substellar C/O ratio (≤0.35) and substantial contribution from clouds, which are parameterized differently by each model grid (see each grid description above). We show the best fits from each model grid in Extended Data Fig. 7. This interpretation is in agreement with the results using JWST’s NIRSpec/PRISM instrument from 3.0–5.0 µm (ref. 7), improving on the wider spread from previous HST-only13–15,17,18,94 or HST and ground-based optical interpretations16.

For the NIRCam-only fit, the PICASO grey-cloud scheme produced a slightly better best fit (χν2 = 1.16) than the PICASO + Virga more realistic clouds (χν2 = 1.23), both of which were preferred to the clear-model best fit (100× solar) with χν2 = 1.53. The Virga best-fit grid resulted in an atmosphere of 1× solar metallicity, C/O = 0.229, fsed = 0.6 and Kzz = 109 cm s−2. This Virga best-fit model consists of clouds of MnS and MgSiO3 with deep (≥100 bar) cloud bases and diminishing optical depth up to approximately millibar pressures.

The best-fit equilibrium model from the PHOENIX grid had 100× solar metallicity, a C/O ratio of 0.3 and a cloud deck at 3 mbar. Cloudy models were generally preferred over clear models, but not with statistical significance (χν2 of 1.25 compared with 1.22). The PHOENIX grid finds best fits with very high metallicity (100× solar), so this low confidence regarding clouds reflects the cloud-metallicity degeneracy inherent in data restricted to narrow wavelengths (for example, ref. 95), as well as potentially the sparseness of the model grid.

For the ATMO grid, the best-fit equilibrium model to the NIRCam spectrum was 1× solar metallicity, a C/O ratio of 0.35, a cloud factor of 5 and a haze factor of 1. As with the other two grids, strongly cloudy models (cloud factor of ≥5) were preferred to clear models (χν2 of 1.1 versus 1.2).

HST + NIRCam

In Extended Data Fig. 8, we show the comparison between the spectra of HST/WFC3 (G141 and G102, covering 0.8–1.65 µm) and JWST/NIRCam (F210M + F322W2, 2.0–4.0 µm). We chose to show only WFC3 observations from HST, as these are of higher precision than observations from the Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph or ground-based data13. In addition, as HST/WFC3 has the most archival exoplanet data of any instrument on HST, the future JWST exoplanet programme will primarily rely on this HST instrument for inter-telescope comparisons or extending the wavelength coverage of JWST data. For example, the addition of optical and shorter wavelength near-infrared data can help break metallicity degeneracies by better constraining the presence and extent of clouds13 (for example, ref. 95). High-altitude clouds or hazes can be inferred from their particle sizes, where small particles scatter shorter wavelengths more efficiently (for example, refs. 96,97), thus enabling the disentanglement of a very cloudy, low-metallicity atmosphere from a less cloudy, high-metallicity atmosphere17.

Molecular detections

Once we found the ‘single best fit’ for the PICASO grid to the NIRCam spectrum (10× solar, C/O = 0.229, grey-cloud optical depth = 2.6 × 10−3 from 1 bar to 0.1 bar), we used this as a base model to explore the significance of specific molecular detections. First, we tested whether we could improve the best fit in the presence or absence of H2O, CO2, CH4 or H2S. We re-ran the best-fit base model by zeroing out each of these species in turn, shown in Fig. 3, and then repeating our χ2 analysis.

We found that although the presence of H2O, H2S and CH4 resulted in a better χν2 value, only H2O and H2S did so in a statistically meaningful way. As H2S does not contain strong molecular features within the NIRCam wavelength range, the Gaussian residual fitting we perform for the detection significance of other molecules is not applicable, and we left its further quantification to more rigorous atmospheric retrieval analyses. Increasing the CH4 abundance beyond that of the best-fit model also improved the χν2, although again not to high statistical significance.

With the best fit in hand, we investigated the presence of individual molecular species. For molecular detection significances, we performed the same Gaussian residual fitting, shown in Extended Data Fig. 9, as for the detection of CO2 in the NIRSpec/PRISM 3.0–5.0 µm analysis7. We find a Bayes factor, ln(B), of 123.2 between the Gaussian residual and constant models for H2O over the whole NIRCam wavelength range, corresponding to 15.9σ, a strong detection. For CO2, we find ln(B) of 0.82 between the Gaussian residual and constant models between 2.4 µm and 2.9 µm, or 1.9σ, which is a weak or non-detection98. CO2 is strongly detected at 4.3 µm in the NIRSpec data for WASP-39b7,41,42, but the strong overlapping H2O band at 2.8 µm prevents NIRCam from making a significant CO2 detection. Given our upper limit on CH4 abundance, we also performed the same Gaussian residual fitting for CH4 and find a weak or non-detection at approximately 2σ.

Both WASP-39b NIRSpec datasets7,41,42 observed evidence for a molecular feature near 4.0 µm, which is currently best explained by sulfur dioxide. The reddest data points (>4.025 µm) from NIRCam also show an increase that is consistent with this feature seen in the NIRSpec data. However, as shown in Extended Data Fig. 5, these NIRCam data points have very large error bars because the detector throughput drops off dramatically past 4.0 µm. Future investigations to thoroughly explore the physicochemical likelihood of sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere of WASP-39b must rely on wavelengths that can fully capture the complete absorption feature, which is beyond the reach of high-fidelity NIRCam/F322W2 measurements.

Online content

Any methods, additional references, Nature Portfolio reporting summaries, source data, extended data, supplementary information, acknowledgements, peer review information; details of author contributions and competing interests; and statements of data and code availability are available at 10.1038/s41586-022-05590-4.

Source data

Source Data Fig. 2

Source Data Fig. 3

Source Data Fig. 4

Extended data figures and tables

Extended Data Fig. 1 Photometric monitoring of WASP-39 (top) and individual transit observations (bottom) using NGTS (magenta) and TESS (dark purple).

The black marks indicate the times of the four JWST ERS transit observations. The monitoring light curve shows evidence for optical variability, but with an RMS amplitude of only 0.06% in NGTS. The times of the individual transit observations are indicated on the top panel, and they are all consistent with transits free of starspot crossings or other features associated with stellar activity.

Extended Data Fig. 2 Raw NIRCam image of the LW (top) and SW (bottom) channels.

The faint horizontal stripes seen in the LW channel originate from neighbouring objects. The SW channel is able to track changes in alignment for individual mirror segments. No impactful tilt events were noted in this observation.

Extended Data Fig. 3 Median NIRCam frame, after curvature correction and background subtraction, shown as the full 2D frame (left) and a vertical slice (right).

Left: curvature-corrected, background-subtracted, median frame. We perform optimal spectral extraction on the pixels in between the green dashed lines. We use the pixels outside of the two orange solid lines for background subtraction. The flux spans −200–1000 electrons, thus drawing attention to the residual background features. Right: vertical slice depicting the flux averaged over detector pixels 855 to 865. The background region clearly demonstrates some low-level residual structure.

Extended Data Fig. 4 Normalized root-mean-square error as a function of bin size for all spectroscopic channels.

The red line shows the expected relationship for perfect Gaussian white noise. The black lines show the observed noise from each spectroscopic channel for the Eureka! long-wavelength reduction. Values for all channels are normalized by dividing by the value for a bin size of 1 in order to compare bins with different noise levels. The black lines closely follow the red line out to large bin sizes of ≈30 (≈0.5-h timescales), which demonstrates that the residuals to the fit are dominated by white Gaussian noise.

Extended Data Fig. 5 The transit spectrum of WSP-39b as determined by our independent analysis using JWST’s NIRCam instrument (top) and the respective differences between our results (bottom).

Top: transmission spectra from our reductions when including additional data on the blue and red edges (now spanning 2.405–4.055 µm). This demonstrates the large error bars and diverging data points near the edges of the NIRCam bandpass in the LW spectroscopic channel. Bottom: the differences in retrieved transmission spectra by subtracting the Eureka! spectrum from the other three reduced spectra shown in the top panel. This shows the strong agreement between the spectra; however, we do note minor disagreements at shorter wavelengths that we attribute to differences in the treatment of limb-darkening effects within the individual fitting methods.

Extended Data Fig. 6 JWST’s NIRCam data of WASP-39 as a function of time and wavelength for each independent reduction (top) and their residuals (bottom).

Top: time-series NIRCam data for the WASP-39b system, from three independent spectral extractions. Colour represents relative brightness at each time and wavelength, normalized by the median stellar spectrum. Bottom: resulting residuals after fitting the time-series NIRCam data.

Extended Data Fig. 7 Measured transmission spectrum compared to atmospheric forward model grids.

Top: the single best fit for each model grid (shown as solid coloured lines; PICASO 3.0, ATMO, PHOENIX), fits the planet spectrum (Eureka! reduction) with χν2 ≤ 1.22. All single best fits prefer at least solar metallicity and substantial cloud cover. Also shown as a grey dashed line is a solar metallicity, stellar C/O ratio atmospheric model, demonstrating the lack of methane absorption seen in the spectrum. Because we can put an upper limit on the CH4 abundance, the preferred C/O ratio found by the model grids is substellar. Bottom: residuals of each best fit, shown as the model spectrum subtracted from the reduced spectrum and divided by the uncertainty in transit depth. The residuals show wavelength-dependent correlations, the origin of which are unknown and left for a future study.

Extended Data Fig. 8 Our JWST/NIRCam spectrum compared with existing HST/WFC3 data.

As in Extended Data Fig. 7, but with the addition of HST/WFC3 data from 0.8 to 1.65 μm, showing the comparable precision and complementary wavelength coverage offered by the combination of NIRCam and HST/WFC3.

Extended Data Fig. 9 Gaussian residual fitting of H2O and CO2.

The blue points show the residual features left after subtracting out the gas in question (CO2, top, and H2O, bottom) from the single best-fit model. The Gaussian model ensemble fit to the residual is shown in red; the best-fit Gaussian ensemble to a flat-line model is shown in blue. We strongly detect H2O at nearly 16σ and show weak evidence for CO2 (small feature at 2.6 µm) at 1.9σ.

Extended Data Table 1 Details of the two methods used to fit the short-wavelength (SW) photometry

Details of the two methods used to fit the short-wavelength (SW) photometry

Abbreviations for priors are as follows: U=uniform prior, with numbers indicating lower and upper limits; N=normal prior, with numbers indicating mean and sigma; LN=log-normal prior, with numbers indicating mean and sigma.

* Subscripts 0, 1, etc. indicate the 0th, 1st, etc. order terms in polynomial models.

Extended Data Table 2 Details of the four fitting methods used to fit the long-wavelength (LW) spectroscopy

Details of the four fitting methods used to fit the long-wavelength (LW) spectroscopy

Abbreviations for priors are as follows: U = uniform prior, with numbers indicating lower and upper limits; LU = log-uniform prior, with numbers indicating lower and upper limits; N = normal prior, with numbers indicating mean and sigma; LN = log-normal prior, with numbers indicating mean and sigma. The notation ``spec-fixed’’ indicates that a value was fit in the white-light curve and fixed to the best-fit value for the spectroscopic light curves.

* Note that different fitting methods used different parameterizations of the planetary orbit and noise model, so not all methods fit for all of the listed parameters. Parameters marked with “N/A” were not fit in that method and were instead derived from the other fitted parameters.

† Subscripts 0, 1, etc. indicate the 0th, 1st, etc. order terms in polynomial models.

‡ The GP model was only applied to the white-light curve. For the spectroscopic light curves, the divide-white method102 was used to remove the GP systematics.

Extended Data Table 3 Best-fit orbital parameters from both short-wavelength (SW) and white-light long-wavelength (LW) fits

Best-fit orbital parameters from both short-wavelength (SW) and white-light long-wavelength (LW) fits

Extended data

is available for this paper at 10.1038/s41586-022-05590-4.

Supplementary information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1038/s41586-022-05590-4.

Acknowledgements

This work is based in part on observations made with the NASA/ESA/CSA James Webb Space Telescope. The data were obtained from the Mikulski Archive for Space Telescopes (MAST) at the Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI), which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under NASA contract NAS 5-03127 for JWST. These observations are associated with programme #1366. Support for this programme was provided by NASA through a grant from STScI. This work is based in part on data collected under the NGTS project at the European Southern Observatory’s La Silla Paranal Observatory. The NGTS facility is operated by a consortium of institutes with support from the UK Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC) under projects ST/M001962/1, ST/S002642/1 and ST/W003163/1. This paper includes data collected by the TESS mission, obtained from MAST at STScI. Funding for the TESS mission is provided by the NASA’s Science Mission Directorate. This article is supported by the UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) to fund open access through the University of Warwick.

Author contributions

All authors played a significant role in one or more of the following: development of the original proposal, management of the project, definition of the target list and observation plan, analysis of the data, theoretical modelling and preparation of this manuscript. Some specific contributions are listed as follows. N.M.B., J.L.B. and K.B.S. provided overall programme leadership and management. E.-M.A. and K.B.S. led the efforts for this manuscript. D.K.S., E.M.-R.K., H.R.W., I.J.M.C., J.L.B., K.B.S., L.K., M.L.-M., M.R.L., N.M.B., V.P. and Z.K.B.-T. made significant contributions to the design of the programme. K.B.S. generated the observing plan with input from the team. E.S., N.E. and T.G.B. provided instrument expertise. B.B., E.M.-R.K., H.R.W., I.J.M.C., J.L.B., L.K., M.L.-M., M.R.L., N.M.B. and Z.K.B.-T. led or co-led working groups and/or contributed to significant strategic planning efforts like the design and implementation of the pre-launch Data Challenges. A.L.C., D.K.S., E.S., N.E., N.P.G., T.G.B. and V.P. generated simulated data for pre-launch testing of methods. C.A.M., D.J.M.P., E.-M.A., E.S., J. Brande, K.B.S., M.D., M.M., N.K.N. and S.Z. reduced the data, modelled the light curves and produced the planetary spectrum. J.M.G., J.L., K.O., N.E.B., S.E.M. and S.M. generated theoretical model grids for comparison with data. C.A.M., D.J.M.P., E.-M.A., E.S., J.L., K.B.S., M.M., N.K.N., P.J.W. and S.E.M. made significant contributions to the writing of this manuscript. C.A.M., E.-M.A., K.B.S., M.P.B., M.M., P.J.W., S.G., S.E.M. and Z.K.B.-T. generated figures for this paper. B.V.R., E.L.S., G.M., J. Brande, S.Z. and Z.K.B.-T. contributed to the writing of this manuscript. J.H., M.R.L., N.K.L., P.G., P.J.W., R.H., T.D. and T.G.B. provided significant feedback to the manuscript.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature thanks the anonymous reviewers for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Data availability

The data used in this paper are associated with JWST programme ERS 1366 (observation 2) and are available from the Mikulski Archive for Space Telescopes (https://mast.stsci.edu). We used calibration data from programme 1076. All the data and models presented in this publication can be found at 10.5281/zenodo.7101283. Source data are provided with this paper.

Code availability

The codes used in this publication to extract, reduce and analyse the data are as follows: batman99, emcee60, Eureka!55, jwst100, chromatic, chromatic-fitting, PyMC361, Exoplanet62,63, gCMCRT101, CONAN57,58, ExoTiC-LD64–66, LACOSMIC59, PICASO77,78, Virga90 and VULCAN33. The Jupyter notebook to reproduce the transmission spectrum as shown here using the Eureka! code is open-source and can be found at 10.5281/zenodo.7510106. 

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
==== Refs
References

1. Stevenson KB Transmission spectroscopy of the hot Jupiter WASP-12b from 0.7 to 5 μm Astron. J. 2014 147 161 10.1088/0004-6256/147/6/161
2. Sing DK A continuum from clear to cloudy hot-Jupiter exoplanets without primordial water depletion Nature 2016 529 59 62 10.1038/nature16068 26675732
3. Öberg KI Murray-Clay R Bergin EA The effects of snowlines on C/O in planetary atmospheres Astrophys. J. Lett. 2011 743 L16 10.1088/2041-8205/743/1/L16
4. Espinoza N Fortney JJ Miguel Y Thorngren D Murray-Clay R Metal enrichment leads to low atmospheric C/O ratios in transiting giant exoplanets Astrophys. J. Lett. 2017 838 L9 10.3847/2041-8213/aa65ca
5. Cooper CS Showman AP Dynamics and disequilibrium carbon chemistry in hot Jupiter atmospheres, with application to HD 209458b Astrophys. J. 2006 649 1048 1063 10.1086/506312
6. Moses JI Disequilibrium carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen chemistry in the atmospheres of HD 189733b and HD 209458b Astrophys. J. 2011 737 15 10.1088/0004-637X/737/1/15
7. JWST Transiting Exoplanet Community Early Release Science Team. Identification of carbon dioxide in an exoplanet atmosphere. Nature10.1038/s41586-022-05269-w (2022).
8. Stevenson KB Transiting exoplanet studies and community targets for JWST’s Early Release Science program Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 2016 128 094401 10.1088/1538-3873/128/967/094401
9. Bean JL The Transiting Exoplanet Community Early Release Science program for JWST Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 2018 130 114402 10.1088/1538-3873/aadbf3
10. Faedi F WASP-39b: a highly inflated Saturn-mass planet orbiting a late G-type star Astron. Astrophys. 2011 531 A40 10.1051/0004-6361/201116671
11. Wheatley PJ The Next Generation Transit Survey (NGTS) Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2018 475 4476 4493 10.1093/mnras/stx2836
12. Ricker GR Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS) J. Astron. Telesc. Instrum. Syst. 2015 1 014003 10.1117/1.JATIS.1.1.014003
13. Wakeford HR The complete transmission spectrum of WASP-39b with a precise water constraint Astron. J. 2018 155 29 10.3847/1538-3881/aa9e4e
14. Fischer PD HST Hot-Jupiter Transmission Spectral Survey: clear skies for cool Saturn WASP-39b Astrophys. J. 2016 827 19 10.3847/0004-637X/827/1/19
15. Tsiaras A A population study of gaseous exoplanets Astron. J. 2018 155 156 10.3847/1538-3881/aaaf75
16. Kirk J LRG-BEASTS: transmission spectroscopy and retrieval analysis of the highly inflated Saturn-mass planet WASP-39b Astron. J. 2019 158 144 10.3847/1538-3881/ab397d
17. Pinhas A Madhusudhan N Gandhi S MacDonald R H2O abundances and cloud properties in ten hot giant exoplanets Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2019 482 1485 1498 10.1093/mnras/sty2544
18. Welbanks L Mass–metallicity trends in transiting exoplanets from atmospheric abundances of H2O, Na, and K Astrophys. J. Lett. 2019 887 L20 10.3847/2041-8213/ab5a89
19. Changeat Q KELT-11 b: abundances of water and constraints on carbon-bearing molecules from the Hubble transmission spectrum Astron. J. 2020 160 260 10.3847/1538-3881/abbe12
20. Mugnai LV ARES. V. No evidence for molecular absorption in the HST WFC3 spectrum of GJ 1132 b Astron. J. 2021 161 284 10.3847/1538-3881/abf3c3
21. Swain MR Detection of an atmosphere on a rocky exoplanet Astron. J. 2021 161 213 10.3847/1538-3881/abe879
22. Libby-Roberts JE The featureless HST/WFC3 transmission spectrum of the rocky exoplanet GJ 1132b: no evidence for a cloud-free primordial atmosphere and constraints on starspot contamination Astron. J. 2022 164 59 10.3847/1538-3881/ac75de
23. Lodders, K. & Fegley, B. The Planetary Scientist’s Companion (Oxford Univ. Press, 1998).
24. Kreidberg L A precise water abundance measurement for the hot Jupiter WASP-43b Astrophys. J. Lett. 2014 793 L27 10.1088/2041-8205/793/2/L27
25. Fletcher LN Orton GS Teanby NA Irwin PGJ Bjoraker GL Methane and its isotopologues on Saturn from Cassini/CIRS observations Icarus 2009 199 351 367 10.1016/j.icarus.2008.09.019
26. Polanski AS Crossfield IJM Howard AW Isaacson H Rice M Chemical abundances for 25 JWST exoplanet host stars with KeckSpec Res. Not. Am. Astron. Soc. 2022 6 155 36751686
27. Lodders K Fegley B Atmospheric chemistry in giant planets, brown dwarfs, and low-mass dwarf stars. I. Carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen Icarus 2002 155 393 424 10.1006/icar.2001.6740
28. Woitke P Equilibrium chemistry down to 100 K. Impact of silicates and phyllosilicates on the carbon to oxygen ratio Astron. Astrophys. 2018 614 A1 10.1051/0004-6361/201732193
29. Gandhi S Madhusudhan N Hawker G Piette A HyDRA-H: simultaneous hybrid retrieval of exoplanetary emission spectra Astron. J. 2019 158 228 10.3847/1538-3881/ab4efc
30. Line MR A solar C/O and sub-solar metallicity in a hot Jupiter atmosphere Nature 2021 598 580 584 10.1038/s41586-021-03912-6 34707303
31. Li C The water abundance in Jupiter’s equatorial zone Nat. Astron. 2020 4 609 616 10.1038/s41550-020-1009-3
32. Atreya, S. K. et al. The origin and evolution of Saturn: A post-Cassini perspective. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.06914 (2022).
33. Tsai S-M A comparative study of atmospheric chemistry with VULCAN Astrophys. J. 2021 923 264 10.3847/1538-4357/ac29bc
34. Agúndez M Parmentier V Venot O Hersant F Selsis F Pseudo 2D chemical model of hot-Jupiter atmospheres: application to HD 209458b and HD 189733b Astron. Astrophys. 2014 564 A73 10.1051/0004-6361/201322895
35. Hu R Photochemistry and spectral characterization of temperate and gas-rich exoplanets Astrophys. J. 2021 921 27 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1789
36. Steinrueck ME Parmentier V Showman AP Lothringer JD Lupu RE The effect of 3D transport-induced disequilibrium carbon chemistry on the atmospheric structure, phase curves, and emission spectra of hot Jupiter HD 189733b Astrophys. J. 2019 880 14 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2598
37. Molaverdikhani K Henning T Mollière P From cold to hot irradiated gaseous exoplanets: fingerprints of chemical disequilibrium in atmospheric spectra Astrophys. J. 2019 883 194 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3e30
38. Molaverdikhani K Henning T Mollière P The role of clouds on the depletion of methane and water dominance in the transmission spectra of irradiated exoplanets Astrophys. J. 2020 899 53 10.3847/1538-4357/aba52b
39. Drummond B Implications of three-dimensional chemical transport in hot Jupiter atmospheres: results from a consistently coupled chemistry–radiation–hydrodynamics model Astron. Astrophys. 2020 636 A68 10.1051/0004-6361/201937153
40. Feinstein, A. D. et al. Early Release Science of the exoplanet WASP-39b with JWST NIRISS. Nature10.1038/s41586-022-05674-1 (2023).
41. Alderson, L. et al. Early Release Science of the exoplanet WASP-39b with JWST NIRSpec G395H. Nature10.1038/s41586-022-05591-3 (2023).
42. Rustamkulov, Z. et al. Early Release Science of the exoplanet WASP-39b with JWST NIRSpec PRISM. Nature10.1038/s41586-022-05677-y (2023).
43. Ali-Dib M Disentangling hot Jupiters formation location from their chemical composition Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2017 467 2845 2854 10.1093/mnras/stx260
44. Cridland AJ van Dishoeck EF Alessi M Pudritz RE Connecting planet formation and astrochemistry. A main sequence for C/O in hot exoplanetary atmospheres Astron. Astrophys. 2019 632 A63 10.1051/0004-6361/201936105
45. Danielson RE The infrared spectrum of Jupiter Astrophys. J. 1966 143 949 10.1086/148570
46. Schlawin E JWST noise floor. I. Random error sources in JWST NIRCam time series Astron. J. 2020 160 231 10.3847/1538-3881/abb811
47. Wong MH Mahaffy PR Atreya SK Niemann HB Owen TC Updated Galileo probe mass spectrometer measurements of carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, and sulfur on Jupiter Icarus 2004 171 153 170 10.1016/j.icarus.2004.04.010
48. Karkoschka E Tomasko MG The haze and methane distributions on Neptune from HST-STIS spectroscopy Icarus 2011 211 780 797 10.1016/j.icarus.2010.08.013
49. Sromovsky LA Fry PM Kim JH Methane on Uranus: the case for a compact CH4 cloud layer at low latitudes and a severe CH4 depletion at high-latitudes based on re-analysis of Voyager occultation measurements and STIS spectroscopy Icarus 2011 215 292 312 10.1016/j.icarus.2011.06.024
50. Asplund M Grevesse N Sauval AJ Scott P The chemical composition of the Sun Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 2009 47 481 522 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222
51. Bryant EM Simultaneous TESS and NGTS transit observations of WASP-166 b Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2020 494 5872 5881 10.1093/mnras/staa1075
52. O’Brien SM Scintillation-limited photometry with the 20-cm NGTS telescopes at Paranal Observatory Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2022 509 6111 6118 10.1093/mnras/stab3399
53. Rieke, M. J., Kelly, D. & Horner, S. in Cryogenic Optical Systems and Instruments XI Proceedings of SPIE Vol. 5904 (eds Heaney, J. B. & Burriesci, L. G.) 1–8 (SPIE, 2005).
54. Greene TP λ = 2.4 to 5 μm spectroscopy with the James Webb Space Telescope NIRCam instrument J. Astron. Telesc. Instrum. Syst. 2017 3 035001 10.1117/1.JATIS.3.3.035001 29250563
55. Bell TJ Eureka!: an end-to-end pipeline for JWST time-series observations J. Open Source Softw. 2022 7 4503 10.21105/joss.04503
56. Horne K An optimal extraction algorithm for CCD spectroscopy Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 1986 98 609 617 10.1086/131801
57. Lendl M FORS2 observes a multi-epoch transmission spectrum of the hot Saturn-mass exoplanet WASP-49b Astron. Astrophys. 2016 587 A67 10.1051/0004-6361/201527594
58. Lendl M Signs of strong Na and K absorption in the transmission spectrum of WASP-103b Astron. Astrophys. 2017 606 A18 10.1051/0004-6361/201731242
59. van Dokkum PG Cosmic-ray rejection by Laplacian edge detection Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 2001 113 1420 1427 10.1086/323894
60. Foreman-Mackey D Hogg DW Lang D Goodman J emcee: the MCMC hammer Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 2013 125 306 10.1086/670067
61. Salvatier, J., Wiecki, T. V. & Fonnesbeck, C. Probabilistic programming in Python using PyMC3. PeerJ Comput. Sci.10.7717/peerj-cs.55 (2016).
62. Foreman-Mackey D exoplanet: gradient-based probabilistic inference for exoplanet data & other astronomical time series J. Open Source Softw. 2021 6 3285 10.21105/joss.03285
63. Luger R starry: analytic occultation light curves Astron. J. 2019 157 64 10.3847/1538-3881/aae8e5
64. Wakeford, H. & Grant, D. Exo-TiC/ExoTiC-LD: ExoTiC-LD v2.1 zenodo release. Zenodo10.5281/zenodo.6809899 (2022).
65. Laginja I Wakeford H ExoTiC-ISM: a Python package for marginalised exoplanet transit parameters across a grid of systematic instrument models J. Open Source Softw. 2020 5 2281 10.21105/joss.02281
66. Laginja, I. & Wakeford, H. ExoTiC-ISM v2.0.0. Zenodo10.5281/zenodo.3923986 (2020).
67. Morello G Tsiaras A Howarth ID Homeier D High-precision stellar limb-darkening in exoplanetary transits Astron. J. 2017 154 111 10.3847/1538-3881/aa8405
68. Morello G The ExoTETHyS package: tools for exoplanetary transits around host stars Astron. J. 2020 159 75 10.3847/1538-3881/ab63dc
69. Kipping DM Efficient, uninformative sampling of limb darkening coefficients for two-parameter laws Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2013 435 2152 2160 10.1093/mnras/stt1435
70. Claret A A new non-linear limb-darkening law for LTE stellar atmosphere models. Calculations for −5.0 <= log[M/H] <= +1, 2000 K <= Teff <= 50000 K at several surface gravities Astron. Astrophys. 2000 363 1081 1190
71. Tremblin P Fingering convection and cloudless models for cool brown dwarf atmospheres Astrophys. J. Lett. 2015 804 L17 10.1088/2041-8205/804/1/L17
72. Goyal JM A library of ATMO forward model transmission spectra for hot Jupiter exoplanets Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2018 474 5158 5185 10.1093/mnras/stx3015
73. Goyal JM A library of self-consistent simulated exoplanet atmospheres Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2020 498 4680 4704 10.1093/mnras/staa2300
74. Hauschildt PH Allard F Baron E The NextGen Model Atmosphere grid for 3000 <= Teff <= 10,000 K ApJ 1999 512 377 385 10.1086/306745
75. Barman TS Hauschildt PH Allard F Irradiated planets Astrophys. J. 2001 556 885 895 10.1086/321610
76. Lothringer JD Barman TS The PHOENIX exoplanet retrieval algorithm and using H− opacity as a probe in ultrahot Jupiters Astron. J. 2020 159 289 10.3847/1538-3881/ab8d33
77. Batalha NE Marley MS Lewis NK Fortney JJ Exoplanet reflected-light spectroscopy with PICASO Astrophys. J. 2019 878 70 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1b51
78. Mukherjee, S., Batalha, N. E., Fortney, J. J. & Marley, M. S. PICASO 3.0: a one-dimensional climate model for giant planets and brown dwarfs. Astrophys. J. 942, 71 (2023).
79. McKay CP Pollack JB Courtin R The thermal structure of Titan’s atmosphere Icarus 1989 80 23 53 10.1016/0019-1035(89)90160-7 11538676
80. Fortney JJ Marley MS Lodders K Saumon D Freedman R Comparative planetary atmospheres: models of TrES-1 and HD 209458b Astrophys. J. Lett. 2005 627 L69 L72 10.1086/431952
81. Marley MS The Sonora brown dwarf atmosphere and evolution models. I. Model description and application to cloudless atmospheres in rainout chemical equilibrium Astrophys. J. 2021 920 85 10.3847/1538-4357/ac141d
82. Barber RJ Tennyson J Harris GJ Tolchenov RN A high-accuracy computed water line list Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2006 368 1087 1094 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10184.x
83. Tennyson J Yurchenko S The ExoMol atlas of molecular opacities Atoms 2018 6 26 10.3390/atoms6020026
84. Tennyson J Yurchenko SN ExoMol: molecular line lists for exoplanet and other atmospheres Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2012 425 21 33 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21440.x
85. Yurchenko SN Tennyson J Barber RJ Thiel W Vibrational transition moments of CH4 from first principles J. Mol. Spectrosc. 2013 291 69 76 10.1016/j.jms.2013.05.014
86. Yurchenko SN Tennyson J ExoMol line lists—IV. The rotation–vibration spectrum of methane up to 1500 K Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2014 440 1649 1661 10.1093/mnras/stu326
87. Huang X Gamache RR Freedman RS Schwenke DW Lee TJ Reliable infrared line lists for 13 CO2 isotopologues up to E′=18,000 cm−1 and 1500 K, with line shape parameters J. Quant. Spectrosc. Radiat. Transf. 2014 147 134 144
88. Rothman LS The HITRAN2012 molecular spectroscopic database J. Quant. Spectrosc. Radiat. Transf. 2013 130 4 50 10.1016/j.jqsrt.2013.07.002
89. Azzam AAA Lodi L Yurchenko SN Tennyson J The dipole moment surface for hydrogen sulfide H2S J. Quant. Spectrosc. Radiat. Transf. 2015 161 41 49 10.1016/j.jqsrt.2015.03.029
90. Rooney CM Batalha NE Gao P Marley MS A new sedimentation model for greater cloud diversity in giant exoplanets and brown dwarfs Astrophys. J. 2022 925 33 10.3847/1538-4357/ac307a
91. Ackerman AS Marley MS Precipitating condensation clouds in substellar atmospheres Astrophys. J. 2001 556 872 884 10.1086/321540
92. Lothringer JD A new window into planet formation and migration: refractory-to-volatile elemental ratios in ultra-hot Jupiters Astrophys. J. 2021 914 12 10.3847/1538-4357/abf8a9
93. Drummond B The effects of consistent chemical kinetics calculations on the pressure–temperature profiles and emission spectra of hot Jupiters Astron. Astrophys. 2016 594 A69 10.1051/0004-6361/201628799
94. Kawashima Y Min M Implementation of disequilibrium chemistry to spectral retrieval code ARCiS and application to 16 exoplanet transmission spectra. Indication of disequilibrium chemistry for HD 209458b and WASP-39b Astron. Astrophys. 2021 656 A90 10.1051/0004-6361/202141548
95. Benneke B Seager S How to distinguish between cloudy mini-Neptunes and water/volatile-dominated super-Earths Astrophys. J. 2013 778 153 10.1088/0004-637X/778/2/153
96. Pinhas A Madhusudhan N On signatures of clouds in exoplanetary transit spectra Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2017 471 4355 4373 10.1093/mnras/stx1849
97. Kitzmann D Heng K Optical properties of potential condensates in exoplanetary atmospheres Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2018 475 94 107 10.1093/mnras/stx3141
98. Trotta R Bayes in the sky: Bayesian inference and model selection in cosmology Contemp. Phys. 2008 49 71 104 10.1080/00107510802066753
99. Kreidberg L batman: Basic Transit Model Calculation in Python Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 2015 127 1161 10.1086/683602
100. JWST Calibration Pipeline Developers. jwst: Python library for science observations from the James Webb Space Telescope. GitHub https://github.com/spacetelescope/jwst (2022).
101. Lee EKH 3D radiative transfer for exoplanet atmospheres. gCMCRT: a GPU-accelerated MCRT code Astrophys. J. 2022 929 180 10.3847/1538-4357/ac61d6
102. Kreidberg L Clouds in the atmosphere of the super-Earth exoplanet GJ1214b Nature 2014 505 69 72 10.1038/nature12888 24380954
