* Lee et al. (2017) Lee, C.-F., Ho, P. T. P., Li, Z.-Y., et al. 2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 0152.
  * Lombardi et al. (2014) Lombardi, M., Bouy, H., Alves, J., et al. 2014, A&A, 566, A45. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201323293
  * Machida et al. (2008) Machida, M. N., Inutsuka, S.-. ichiro ., & Matsumoto, T. 2008, ApJ, 676, 1088.
  * Machida & Hosokawa (2013) Machida, M. N. & Hosokawa, T. 2013, MNRAS, 431, 1719. doi:10.1093/mnras/stt291
  * Masson & Chernin (1993) Masson, C. R. & Chernin, L. M. 1993, ApJ, 414, 230. doi:10.1086/173071
  * Matzner & McKee (1999) Matzner, C. D. & McKee, C. F. 1999, ApJ, 526, L109. doi:10.1086/312376
  * Maud et al. (2015) Maud, L. T., Moore, T. J. T., Lumsden, S. L., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 453, 645. doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1635
  * Megeath et al. (2012) Megeath, S. T., Gutermuth, R., Muzerolle, J., et al. 2012, AJ, 144, 192. doi:10.1088/0004-6256/144/6/192
  * Megeath et al. (2016) Megeath, S. T., Gutermuth, R., Muzerolle, J., et al. 2016, AJ, 151, 5. doi:10.3847/0004-6256/151/1/5
  * Megeath et al. (2022) Megeath, S. T., Gutermuth, R. A., & Kounkel, M. A. 2022, PASP, 134, 042001. doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ac4c9c
  * Mignone et al. (2012) Mignone, A., Zanni, C., Tzeferacos, P., et al. 2012, ApJS, 198, 7. doi:10.1088/0067-0049/198/1/7
  * Motte et al. (1998) Motte, F., Andre, P., & Neri, R. 1998, A&A, 336, 150
  * Motte et al. (2001) Motte, F., André, P., Ward-Thompson, D., et al. 2001, A&A, 372, L41. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20010543
  * Motte et al. (2021) Motte, F., Bontemps, S., Csengeri, T., et al. 2021, arXiv:2112.08182
  * Mottram et al. (2017) Mottram, J. C., van Dishoeck, E. F., Kristensen, L. E., et al. 2017, A&A, 600, A99. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201628682
  * Myers & Ladd (1993) Myers, P. C. & Ladd, E. F. 1993, ApJ, 413, L47. doi:10.1086/186956
  * Myers (2008) Myers, P. C. 2008, ApJ, 687, 340. doi:10.1086/591664
  * Nagy et al. (2020) Nagy, Z., Menechella, A., Megeath, S. T., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A137. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201937342
  * Offner et al. (2011) Offner, S. S. R., Lee, E. J., Goodman, A. A., et al. 2011, ApJ, 743, 91.
  * Offner & Arce (2014) Offner, S. S. R. & Arce, H. G. 2014, ApJ, 784, 61. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/784/1/61
  * Offner & Chaban (2017) Offner, S. S. R. & Chaban, J. 2017, ApJ, 847, 104. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa8996
  * Ostriker et al. (2001) Ostriker, E. C., Lee, C.-F., Stone, J. M., et al. 2001, ApJ, 557, 443. doi:10.1086/321649
  * Oya et al. (2018) Oya, Y., Sakai, N., Watanabe, Y., et al. 2018, ApJ, 863, 72. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aacf42
  * Oya et al. (2022) Oya, Y., Kibukawa, H., Miyake, S., et al. 2022, PASP, 134, 094301. doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ac8839
  * Pascucci et al. (2022) Pascucci, I., Cabrit, S., Edwards, S., et al. 2022, arXiv:2203.10068
  * Pineda et al. (2020) Pineda, J. E., Segura-Cox, D., Caselli, P., et al. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 1158. doi:10.1038/s41550-020-1150-z
  * Rabenanahary et al. (2022) Rabenanahary, M., Cabrit, S., Meliani, Z., et al. 2022, A&A, 664, A118. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243139
  * Raga et al. (1993) Raga, A. C., Canto, J., Calvet, N., et al. 1993, A&A, 276, 539
  * Rezaei Kh. et al. (2020) Rezaei Kh., S., Bailer-Jones, C. A. L., Soler, J. D., et al. 2020, A&A, 643, A151. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038708
  * Rohde et al. (2022) Rohde, P. F., Walch, S., Seifried, D., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 2552. doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3572
  * Rosen & Smith (2004) Rosen, A. & Smith, M. D. 2004, MNRAS, 347, 1097. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07279.x
  * Roueff et al. (2021) Roueff, A., Gerin, M., Gratier, P., et al. 2021, A&A, 645, A26. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202037776
  * Santiago-García et al. (2009) Santiago-García, J., Tafalla, M., Johnstone, D., et al. 2009, A&A, 495, 169.
  * Seale & Looney (2008) Seale, J. P. & Looney, L. W. 2008, ApJ, 675, 427.
  * Scandariato et al. (2012) Scandariato, G., Da Rio, N., Robberto, M., et al. 2012, A&A, 545, A19. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201219264
  * Schwarz et al. (2012) Schwarz, K. R., Shirley, Y. L., & Dunham, M. M. 2012, AJ, 144, 115. doi:10.1088/0004-6256/144/4/115
  * Shang et al. (2020) Shang, H., Krasnopolsky, R., Liu, C.-F., et al. 2020, ApJ, 905, 116. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abbdb0
  * Shu et al. (1995) Shu, F. H., Najita, J., Ostriker, E. C., et al. 1995, ApJ, 455, L155. doi:10.1086/309838
  * Shu et al. (2000) Shu, F. H., Najita, J. R., Shang, H., et al. 2000, Protostars and Planets IV, 789
  * Spitoni et al. (2008) Spitoni, E., Recchi, S., & Matteucci, F. 2008, A&A, 484, 743. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200809403
  * Snell et al. (1980) Snell, R. L., Loren, R. B., & Plambeck, R. L. 1980, Interstellar Molecules, 87, 173
  * Solomon et al. (1981) Solomon, P. M., Huguenin, G. R., & Scoville, N. Z. 1981, ApJ, 245, L19. doi:10.1086/183513
  * Stanke et al. (2006) Stanke, T., Smith, M. D., Gredel, R., et al. 2006, A&A, 447, 609. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20041331
  * Stanke et al. (2022) Stanke, T., Arce, H. G., Bally, J., et al. 2022, A&A, 658, A178. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201937034
  * Stanke et al. (2022) Stanke, T., Arce, H. G., Bally, J., et al. 2022, arXiv:2201.00463
  * Stutz et al. (2013) Stutz, A. M., Tobin, J. J., Stanke, T., et al. 2013, ApJ, 767, 36. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/767/1/36
  * Tabone et al. (2017) Tabone, B., Cabrit, S., Bianchi, E., et al. 2017, A&A, 607, L6.
  * Tafalla et al. (2004) Tafalla, M., Santiago, J., Johnstone, D., et al. 2004, A&A, 423, L21.
  * Takahashi et al. (2008) Takahashi, S., Saito, M., Ohashi, N., et al. 2008, ApJ, 688, 344. doi:10.1086/592212
  * Takemura et al. (2021) Takemura, H., Nakamura, F., Ishii, S., et al. 2021, PASJ, 73, 487. doi:10.1093/pasj/psab014
  * Testi & Sargent (1998) Testi, L. & Sargent, A. I. 1998, ApJ, 508, L91. doi:10.1086/311724
  * Tobin et al. (2007) Tobin, J. J., Looney, L. W., Mundy, L. G., et al. 2007, ApJ, 659, 1404.
  * Tobin et al. (2020) Tobin, J. J., Sheehan, P. D., Megeath, S. T., et al. 2020, ApJ, 890, 130.
  * Tobin et al. (2022) Tobin, J. J., Offner, S. S. R., Kratter, K. M., et al. 2022, ApJ, 925, 39. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac36d2
  * van der Marel et al. (2013) van der Marel, N., Kristensen, L. E., Visser, R., et al. 2013, A&A, 556, A76. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201220717
  * Vazzano et al. (2021) Vazzano, M. M., Fernández-López, M., Plunkett, A., et al. 2021, A&A, 648, A41. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039228
  * van Kempen et al. (2016) van Kempen, T. A., Hogerheijde, M. R., van Dishoeck, E. F., et al. 2016, A&A, 587, A17. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201424725
  * Velusamy et al. (2014) Velusamy, T., Langer, W. D., & Thompson, T. 2014, ApJ, 783, 6. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/783/1/6
  * Ward-Thompson et al. (2017) Ward-Thompson, D., Pattle, K., Bastien, P., et al. 2017, ApJ, 842, 66. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa70a0
  * White & Hillenbrand (2004) White, R. J. & Hillenbrand, L. A. 2004, ApJ, 616, 998. doi:10.1086/425115
  * Whitney et al. (2003) Whitney, B. A., Wood, K., Bjorkman, J. E., et al. 2003, ApJ, 591, 1049. doi:10.1086/375415
  * Wilson & Matteucci (1992) Wilson, T. L. & Matteucci, F. 1992, A&A Rev., 4, 1.
  * Wilson et al. (2009) Wilson, T. L., Rohlfs, K., & Hüttemeister, S. 2009, Tools of Radio Astronomy, by Thomas L. Wilson; Kristen Rohlfs and Susanne Hüttemeister. ISBN 978-3-540-85121-9. Published by Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 2009. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-85122-6
  * Xu et al. (2022) Xu, D., Offner, S. S. R., Gutermuth, R., et al. 2022, ApJ, 926, 19. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac39a0
  * Xu et al. (2022) Xu, D., Offner, S. S. R., Gutermuth, R., et al. 2022, ApJ, 941, 81. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aca153
  * Xu & Kunz (2021) Xu, W. & Kunz, M. W. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 4911. doi:10.1093/mnras/stab314
  * Yen et al. (2017) Yen, H.-W., Koch, P. M., Takakuwa, S., et al. 2017, ApJ, 834, 178. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/178
  * Yıldız et al. (2015) Yıldız, U. A., Kristensen, L. E., van Dishoeck, E. F., et al. 2015, A&A, 576, A109. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201424538
  * Zhang et al. (2016) Zhang, Y., Arce, H. G., Mardones, D., et al. 2016, ApJ, 832, 158. doi:10.3847/0004-637X/832/2/158
  * Zhang et al. (2019) Zhang, Y., Arce, H. G., Mardones, D., et al. 2019, ApJ, 883, 1.

##  Appendix A Cloud Subtraction

Total Power array data is sensitive to large-scale emission and is crucial to
recover the outflow mass. However, while it recovers the large-scale outflow
emission it also picks up the cloud emission. Even though we tried to avoid
including cloud emission by not including velocity channels in the outflow
maps that were close to the cloud velocity, there were several sources in
which emission from the parent cloud (or extended “contaminating” CO emission
at different velocities), could not be avoided even at velocities more than 1
km s-1 away from the parent cloud velocity. Therefore, we developed cloud
subtraction routines for the Ring Method and the Pixel Flux-tracing Technique
as shown in Figure 17 and Figure 18 respectively.

The upper left panel of Figure 17 shows the 12CO integrated intensity map of
the red-shifted lobe of the HOPS-135 outflow, which clearly shows large-scale
cloud emission. To avoid contamination from cloud emission in the estimation
of outflow parameters using the RM, we first estimate the averaged background
per pixel inside the ring mask, but outside the outflow mask (as shown in the
upper right panel of Figure 17). For tracers with cloud contamination, we
subtracted the background cloud spectrum from the outflow spectrum, as shown
in the lower panels of Figure 17. We then use the background subtracted data
to construct the mass-spectrum inside the rings to estimate the molecular
outflow rates.

As for the Pixel Flux-tracing Technique (PFT), the mass spectrum is calculated
for each individual pixel (instead of using rings). Hence, we adopted a
slightly different method for the background subtraction as shown in Figure
18. We first obtained the averaged profile for the quantity of interests as a
function of distance from the central protostar perpendicular to the outflow
direction. To avoid subtracting outflow emission near the protostar, we set
the background value in the inner region ($\leq 1050\,$au) to a constant as
shown in Figure 18 upper plot. We rotate the radial profile to create a 2D
background map (see lower middle panel of Figure 18). Then we subtracted out
the background to get rid of the large-scale cloud emission (see lower right
panel of Figure 18).

Figure 17: Subtraction of cloud emission using the Ring Method for HOPS-135.
The red-shifted outflow lobe sits on-top of cloud shown in 12CO Momentum 0
(upper left panel). We measure the background emission in a ring outside the
outflow mask as shown in the upper right panel. For each rings at different
distances from source, we measured its corresponding background. For tracers
with cloud contamination, we subtracted the background cloud spectrum from the
spectrum obtained over the area covered by the outflow (lobe) mask, as shown
in the bottom 3 panels. In the bottom right panel the ‘outflow’ label
represents the background subtracted column density spectrum.

Figure 18: Cloud subtraction method for the PFT. In this example, we show (in
the upper left panel) the uncorrected outflow mass map for HOPS-10, This
clearly shows background cloud emission not associated with the outflow. We
measure the background emission as a function of distance from the central
protostar (perpendicular to the outflow direction), as shown in the upper
panel. The orange and blue lines represent the left side and the right side of
the background emission profile from the protostar. We set the central region
($\leq 1050\,$au) of the profile to constant to avoid subtracting outflow
emission near the protostar. We used the radial profile to generate a two-
dimensional background map (upper middle panel). We then subtract the
background map to remove the cloud contamination, resulting in the background-
subtracted map (upper right panel).

##  Appendix B Outflow inclination properties and wide angle wind modelling

In this section, we compared the inclination angle derived from the wide-angle
wind modeling to the inclination angle derived from the disk major to minor
axis ratio. The inclination angles derived from both methods are shown in
Table 5.

We obtain the outflow inclination angle by fitting a wide-angle wind model (Li
& Shu, 1996; Lee et al., 2000). The wide-angle wind model has been used by
others to estimate the inclination angle (and other properties) of observed
molecular outflows (e.g., Hirano et al., 2010; Arce et al., 2013; Yen et al.,
2017). In this model, the entrained material can be described by a parabolic
shell with a expansion velocity analogous to the Hubble law. Many of the
outflows from Class I sources (and some from flat-spectrum sources) show
parabolic-like cavities similar to those expected from the wide-angle wind
model. On the other hand, this wide-angle wind model may not be appropriate
for modeling molecular outflows from Class 0 sources, as they are typically
very collimated, and show a jet-like morphology (specially at high
velocities). However, some of these Class 0 outflows also exhibit wider
outflow cavities at low velocities (e.g. HOPS-10, HOPS-198). Hence, modeling
these outflow cavity walls with a wide-angle wind model can provide an
estimate of the outflow inclination angle.

The wide-angle wind model of Lee et al. (2000) can be described by 3
independent parameters: $c_{0}$, $v_{0}$, and $i$. Considering z is the
outflow direction, and R is the radial distance from the outflow center, then
a cylindrical symmetric parabolic shell surface can be described by:

$\displaystyle z=c_{0}R^{2},$ (B1)

and the corresponding velocity follows:

$\displaystyle v_{z}=v_{0}z,$ (B2) $\displaystyle v_{r}=v_{0}r,$ (B3)
$\displaystyle v_{\phi}=0.$ (B4)

Figure 19 outlines the basic steps for fitting the wide-angle wind model to
constrain the outflow inclination. We start with creating an outflow mask from
the 12CO integrated intensity (moment 0) map. The outflow mask is used to
isolate the outflow from the surroundings and fit the outflow lobe morphology
to the model. Then we applied the wide-angle wind model to constrain the pair
solutions for $c_{0}$ and $i$ for each lobe (red-shifted and blue-shifted
lobe). The parabola should fit the edge of the outflow mask. For every 5
degrees of inclination angle, from 0 degrees to 180 degrees, we search for the
best solutions for $c_{0}$. In total, we obtained 36 pairs of solutions (for
parameters $c_{0}$ and $i$).

Then for each pair of $c_{0}$ and $i$ solution, we run different wide-angle
wind models with a different characteristic velocity ($v_{0}$) using 0.3, 0.5,
1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5, 4.0, 4.5, 5.0, 5.5, and 6.0 km s-1. In total, we
produced 468 models to compare with the 12CO position-velocity (PV) diagram
along the outflow axis. The central panel in Figure 19 shows the residual plot
with red (value of 1) representing the data, and blue (value of -1)
representing the wide-angle wind model. We eliminate solutions with large
residuals in the PV diagram. After reducing the number of solutions, we used
the remaining solutions (with parameters $c_{0}$, $i$, and $v_{0}$) to compare
with the PV perpendicular to the outflow. For the wide-angle wind model, the
PV diagram perpendicular to the outflow axis is an ellipse. By matching the
ellipse with the observational data, we can constrain the inclination angle of
the outflow axis (with respect to the line-of-sight) as shown for HOPS-130 in
Figure 19. The resulting estimated inclinations are shown in Table 5 with 0
degrees being pole-on and 90 degrees being an edge-on system. The parameters
for the best wide-angle wind model for each source are shown in Table 6. Note
that we divide the $c_{0}$ and $v_{0}$ by the source distance of 400 pc to
convert the values in the unit of au instead of arcseconds.

In Figure 20 we plot the distribution of the difference in inclination values
derived using the two different methods: the outflow wide-angle wind fitting
method and the disk continuum method. For the disk continuum method, the
inclination angle can be derived by using the disk major to minor axis ratio
and assuming the protostellar outflows are perpendicular to the disk plane.
While there is a large dispersion in Figure 20, the distribution peaks at
$10\sim 20^{\circ}$ and shows that in general both methods are consistent with
each other. For the vast majority of sources, the estimated $i$ from the two
methods are different within $35\arcdeg$, and only three sources (i.e., 14% of
the sample) show differences in the estimate of $i$ of $45\arcdeg$ or more.
The small difference between the two methods might be partially explained by
the assumption of a thin disk for the disk minor to major axis ratio method.
Due to the disk thickness, the method cannot fully recover edge-on disk
systems (small outflow inclination angles). Even so, the inclination angle
derived from the high-resolution disk continuum is a likely more accurate
estimate than that derived using the wide-angle wind model because it involves
significantly fewer assumptions. Moreover, it is likely that not all molecular
outflows are entrained by a wide-angle wind (the main assumptions when using
the wide-angle wind model). In particular, many of our Class 0 outflows are
jet-like and deviate from the parabolic shell structure expected in outflows
driven by the wide-angle winds.

We also compare our results to the disk inclination angle derived through
modeling of SED of protostars by Furlan et al. (2016). We find that the
distribution of the derived inclination angle difference is completely random.
This strongly suggests that the disk inclination angle from SED modeling is
not reliable, and should not be used in determining disk and outflow
inclination angles. Alternatively, machine learning approaches may be used to
predict both the plane-of-sky orientation and line-of-sight outflow
inclination from CO spectral data (Xu et al., 2022).

Figure 19: Method for constraining the outflow inclination angle by fitting a wide-angle wind model. The example shown here uses the outflow from HOPS-130.  Table 5: Outflow inclination angles Source | Outflow inclination | Disk | Disk | Disk | Outflow inclination
---|---|---|---|---|---
| from wide-angle wind | major axis | minor axis | minor to major | derived from
| model fit [deg] | [arcsec]aaDeconvolved sizes from ALMA 0.87 mm continuum data published by Tobin et al. (2020).  | [arcsec]aaDeconvolved sizes from ALMA 0.87 mm continuum data published by Tobin et al. (2020).  | axis ratio | disk [deg]
HOPS-10 | 40 | 0$\farcs$14 | 0$\farcs$07 | 0.50 | 60
HOPS-11 | 45 | 0$\farcs$13 | 0$\farcs$12 | 0.92 | 23
HOPS-13 | 50 | 0$\farcs$19 | 0$\farcs$09 | 0.47 | 62
HOPS-127 | 25 | 0$\farcs$05 | 0$\farcs$03 | 0.60 | 53
HOPS-129 | 20 | 0$\farcs$10 | 0$\farcs$06 | 0.60 | 53
HOPS-130 | 25 | 0$\farcs$46 | 0$\farcs$15 | 0.33 | 71
HOPS-134 | 45 | 0$\farcs$06 | 0$\farcs$05 | 0.83 | 34
HOPS-135 | 35 | 0$\farcs$11 | 0$\farcs$06 | 0.55 | 57
HOPS-150B | 25 | 0$\farcs$03 | 0$\farcs$07 | 0.78 | 39
HOPS-157 | 20 | 0$\farcs$53 | 0$\farcs$46 | 0.87 | 30
HOPS-164 | 55 (blue)/25 (red) | 0$\farcs$22 | 0$\farcs$14 | 0.64 | 50
HOPS-166 | 20 | 0$\farcs$16 | 0$\farcs$15 | 0.94 | 20
HOPS-169 | 70 | 0$\farcs$17 | 0$\farcs$13 | 0.77 | 40
HOPS-177 | 30 | 0$\farcs$19 | 0$\farcs$03 | 0.16 | 81ccAs described in 4.1.4, we believe this estimate of the inclination angle is wrong because the continuum image for this source has a poor signal-to-noise. We instead use the mean inclination angle from a random uniform distribution of outflow orientations on the sky ($57.3\arcdeg$) for this source.
HOPS-185 | 30bbSuspicious results. The derived inclination angle is very different compared to the expected value from the molecular outflow morphology (Figure 2). | 0$\farcs$27 | 0$\farcs$10 | 0.37 | 68
HOPS-191 | 30 | 0$\farcs$05 | 0$\farcs$02 | 0.41 | 66
HOPS-194 | 20 | 0$\farcs$19 | 0$\farcs$17 | 0.89 | 27
HOPS-198 | 25bbSuspicious results. The derived inclination angle is very different compared to the expected value from the molecular outflow morphology (Figure 2). | 0$\farcs$41 | 0$\farcs$07 | 0.17 | 80
HOPS-200 | NA | 0$\farcs$46 | 0$\farcs$16 | 0.35 | 70
HOPS-355 | 45 | 0$\farcs$08 | 0$\farcs$07 | 0.88 | 29
HOPS-408 | 70 | 0$\farcs$28 | 0$\farcs$24 | 0.88 | 59

Figure 20: Histogram of inclination angle differences between those derived from the wide-angle wind model fit to the inclinations derived from the disk minor to major axis ratio.  Table 6:  Parameters for the best outflow wide-angle wind model for each source Source | $i$ |  $c_{0}$aaThe uncertainty for $c_{0}$ is 0.74/$sin(i)\times 10^{-4}$ au-1.  |  $v_{0}$bbThe values are either 7.5, 12.5, 25.0 or 37.5 $\,10^{-4}$km s-1 because these are the values for the grid parameter search. The uncertainty for $v_{0}$ is half the interval between the values evaluated by the model. For 7.5$\times\,10^{-4}$ km s-1, the uncertainty is $\pm 3.8\times 10^{-4}$ km s-1, for all other values the the uncertainty is $\pm 6.3\times 10^{-4}$ km s-1.
---|---|---|---
| [deg] | [$10^{-4}$ au-1] | [$10^{-4}$ km s-1]
HOPS-10 | 40 | 40.3 (blue) / 10.8 (red) | 37.5
HOPS-11 | 45 | 6.2 | 12.5
HOPS-13 | 50 | 25.0ccUnreliable results, poorly constrained. | 7.5
HOPS-127 | 25 | 13.9 (blue) / 10.4 (red) | 25.0
HOPS-129 | 20 | 4.3 (blue) / 8.6 (red) | 12.5 (blue) / 7.5 (red)
HOPS-130 | 25 | 7.0 (blue) / 10.4 (red) | 12.5
HOPS-134 | 45 | 4.2 | 12.5
HOPS-135 | 35 | 12.8 | 12.5
HOPS-150B | 25 | 52.2ccUnreliable results, poorly constrained. | 7.5
HOPS-157 | 20 | 64.5 | 37.5
HOPS-164 | 55 (blue)/25 (red) | 45.2 (blue) / 80.0 (red) | 25.0 (blue) / 7.5 (red)
HOPS-166 | 20 | 4.3 | 7.5
HOPS-169 | 70 | 40.7 | 12.5
HOPS-177 | 30 | 5.9 | 7.5
HOPS-185 | 30ddSuspicious results. The derived inclination angle is very different compared to the expected value from the molecular outflow morphology (Figure 2). | 5.9 (blue) / 8.8 (red) | 25.0
HOPS-191 | 30 | 8.8 (blue) / 5.9 (red) | 12.5
HOPS-194 | 20 | 4.3 | 12.5 (blue) / 7.5 (red)
HOPS-198 | 25ddSuspicious results. The derived inclination angle is very different compared to the expected value from the molecular outflow morphology (Figure 2). | 10.4 (blue) / 45.2 (red) | 25.0
HOPS-200 | NA | NA | NA
HOPS-355 | 45 | 27.0 | 12.5
HOPS-408 | 70 | 20.3 | 25.0

##  Appendix C Molecular Outflow Mass, Momentum, and Energy velocity range
information

In this section we show the velocity range used for constructing the molecular
outflow mass, momentum, and energy spectrum. An example of outflow mass
spectrum constructed from CO, 13CO, and C18O is shown in Figure 5.

Table 7: Velocity ranges for constructing Outflow Mass, Momentum, and Energy Spectra |  | Blue-shifted |  |  | Red-shifted |  |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---
Source |  12CO |  13CO | C18O | C18O |  13CO |  12CO |
| ($km\,s^{-1}$) | ($km\,s^{-1}$) | ($km\,s^{-1}$) | ($km\,s^{-1}$) | ($km\,s^{-1}$) | ($km\,s^{-1}$) |
HOPS-10 | $v\leq 7.52$ | $7.52\leq v\leq 7.76$ | NA | NA | $9.58\leq v\leq 9.74$ | $9.74\leq v$ |
HOPS-11 | $v\leq 5.88$ | $5.88\leq v\leq 6.68$ | $6.68\leq v\leq 7.10$ | $8.50\leq v\leq 10.33$ | $10.33\leq v\leq 11.12$ | $11.12\leq v$ |
HOPS-13 | $v\leq 5.02$ | $5.02\leq v\leq 5.58$ | $5.58\leq v\leq 5.66$ | NA | NA | NA |
HOPS-127 | $v\leq 3.27$ | $3.27\leq v\leq 3.75$ | NA | $5.02\leq v\leq 5.65$ | $5.65\leq v\leq 6.84$ | $6.84\leq v$ |
HOPS-129 | $v\leq 2.52$ | $2.52\leq v\leq 2.84$ | $2.84\leq v\leq 2.92$ | NA | NA | NA |
| $2.92\leq v\leq 3.07$ |  |  |  |  |  |
HOPS-130 | $v\leq 2.45$ | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
HOPS-134 | NA | NA | NA | NA | $6.93\leq v\leq 7.80$ | $7.80\leq v$ |
HOPS-135 | $v\leq 3.20$ | $3.20\leq v\leq 3.68$ | $3.68\leq v\leq 4.39$ | $4.95\leq v\leq 5.20$ | $5.20\leq v\leq 6.30$ | $6.30\leq v$ |
HOPS-150 | $v\leq 3.28$ | $3.28\leq v\leq 3.62$ | $3.62\leq v\leq 3.68$ | NA | NA | NA |
HOPS-157 | $v\leq 3.64$ | $4.64\leq v\leq 4.75$ | NA | NA | $6.64\leq v\leq 9.28$ | $9.28\leq v$ |
HOPS-164 | $v\leq 4.61$ | $4.61\leq v\leq 4.92$ | $4.92\leq v\leq 5.09$ | NA | $6.58\leq v\leq 6.83$ | $6.83\leq v$ |
HOPS-166 | $v\leq 5.85$ | NA | NA | NA | $10.05\leq v\leq 12.05$ | $12.05\leq v$ |
HOPS-169 | $v\leq 2.95$ | $2.95\leq v\leq 5.96$ | $5.96\leq v\leq 6.67$ | $7.47\leq v\leq 8.42$ | $9.58\leq v\leq 9.62$ | $9.62\leq v$ |
HOPS-177 | $v\leq 6.78$ | $6.78\leq v\leq 8.37$ | NA | NA | $9,40\leq v\leq 9.96$ | $9.96\leq v$ |
HOPS-185 | $v\leq 6.38$ | $6.38\leq v\leq 6.61$ | $6.61\leq v\leq 6.94$ | NA | NA | $9.87\leq v$ |
HOPS-191 | $v\leq 7.64$ | NA | NA | NA | NA | $10.5\leq v$ |
HOPS-194 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | $9.85\leq v$ |
HOPS-198 | $v\leq 4.72$ | $4.72\leq v\leq 4.79$ | $4.79\leq v\leq 4.88$ | NA | NA | $5.99\leq v\leq 6.54$ |
|  |  |  |  |  | $10.51\leq v$ |
HOPS-200 | $v\leq 6.59$ | $6.59\leq v\leq 6.66$ | $6.66\leq v\leq 7.75$ | NA | NA | NA |
HOPS-355 | $v\leq 4.89$ | $6.05\leq v\leq 6.14$ | $6.14\leq v\leq 6.40$ | NA | NA | $10.05\leq v$ |
HOPS-408 | $v\leq 2.38$ | $2.38\leq v\leq 2.83$ | NA | $4.21\leq v\leq 6.15$ | $6.15\leq v\leq 6.90$ | $6.90\leq v$ |

##  Appendix D Summarize the sources excluded for each analysis

In this section we summarize the sources excluded for each analysis and give
explanations. The results are summarized in Table 8.

Table 8: Sources excluded for each analysis Main Analysis | Analysis item | Section/ Figure | Sources excluded | Reason
---|---|---|---|---
|  |  | HOPS-408 | Outflow is barely resolved.
Mass, | Radial profile | Figure 9 | HOPS-166, HOPS-194 | Significantly higher bolometric luminosity
Momentum, |  |  |  | and core mass compared to other sources.
Energy |  |  Figure 14, | HOPS-408 | Outflow is barely resolved.
rate | Class average |  Table 3, Table 4 | HOPS-166, HOPS-194 | Significantly higher bolometric luminosity
|  |  |  | and core mass compared to other sources.
|  |  | HOPS-11 blue-shifted lobe | Outflow lobe is strongly asymmetric.
|  |  | HOPS-13, HOPS-200 | Very messy outflow.
| Outflow Momentum | Figure 13 | HOPS-134 blue-shifted lobe | No detection.
| angular profile |  | HOPS-135 blue-shifted lobe | Low S/N ratio.
|  |  | HOPS-177 red-shifted lobe | Low S/N ratio.
|  |  | HOPS-11 blue-shifted lobe | Outflow lobe is strongly asymmetric.
Angular |  |  | HOPS-13, HOPS-200 | Very messy outflow.
Profile |  |  | HOPS-130 red-shifted lobe | Compact emission, hard to separate out.
|  |  | HOPS-134 blue-shifted lobe | No detection.
| Outflow Energy | Figure 13 | HOPS-135 blue-shifted lobe | Low S/N ratio.
| angular profile |  | HOPS-150 | Contaminated by nearby source.
|  |  | HOPS-157 red-shifted lobe | Compact emission, hard to separate out.
|  |  | HOPS-177 red-shifted lobe | Low S/N ratio.
|  |  | HOPS-191 red-shifted lobe | Low S/N ratio.
|  |  | HOPS-194 | Low S/N ratio.
|  |  | HOPS-408 | Outflow is barely resolved.
|  |  | HOPS-150, HOPS-166 | Opening angle is ill defined.
| Conventional | Figure 11 |  | Poor Gaussian fits to the 12CO data.
| Opening Angle |  | HOPS-194 | Outflow opening angle measured from
|  |  |  | C18O moment 0 map by eye.
Opening |  |  | HOPS-13, HOPS-134 |
Angle | Momentum | Figure 12 | HOPS-157, HOPS-166, | Poor Gaussian fits to the Momentum Maps.
| Opening Angle |  | HOPS-177, HOPS-194, |
|  |  | HOPS-200 |
|  |  | HOPS-13, HOPS-157 |
| Energy | Figure 12 | HOPS-134, HOPS-191 | Poor Gaussian fits to the Energy Maps.
| Opening Angle |  | HOPS-194, HOPS-200 |
|  |  | HOPS-150 | Contaminated by nearby source.
| Outflow | Figure 15 | HOPS-13, HOPS-150 | Poorly constrained.
| Curvature |  | HOPS-200 |

##  Appendix E Molecular Outflow rates

In this section, we report all the measurements of outflow mass ($\dot{M}$),
momentum ($\dot{P}$), and energy ($\dot{E}$) ejection rate for both the red-
shifted (R) and blue-shifted (B) lobe at different radius. We present the
outflow rate using all outflow gas in Table 9, Table 10, and Table 11. For gas
with escape velocity $v_{out}>1$ km s-1, the outflow rates are reported in
Table 12, Table 13, and Table 14. Similarly, for gas with escape velocity
$v_{out}>2$ km s-1, the outflow rates are reported in Table 15, Table 16, and
Table 17.

Table 9: Molecular outflow rates using all outflow gas, within $2380-3740$ au
and $3749-5100$ au away from source

|  | 2380 | $-$ | 3740 | AU |  |  | 3740 | $-$ | 5100 | AU |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---
Source |  $\dot{M_{B}}$aaIn units of M⊙ Myr-1. |  $\dot{M_{R}}$aaIn units of M⊙ Myr-1. |  $\dot{P_{R}}$bbIn units of $M_{\odot}\,km\,s^{-1}$ Myr-1. |  $\dot{P_{B}}$bbIn units of $M_{\odot}\,km\,s^{-1}$ Myr-1. |  $\dot{E_{R}}$ccHOPS-194 opening angle is measured directly from the C18O outflow cavity as shown in Figure 2. The uncertainty is adopted to be 10% of the measurement. |  $\dot{E_{B}}$ccHOPS-194 opening angle is measured directly from the C18O outflow cavity as shown in Figure 2. The uncertainty is adopted to be 10% of the measurement. |  $\dot{M_{B}}$aaIn units of M⊙ Myr-1. |  $\dot{M_{R}}$aaIn units of M⊙ Myr-1. |  $\dot{P_{R}}$bbIn units of $M_{\odot}\,km\,s^{-1}$ Myr-1. |  $\dot{P_{B}}$bbIn units of $M_{\odot}\,km\,s^{-1}$ Myr-1. |  $\dot{E_{R}}$ccHOPS-194 opening angle is measured directly from the C18O outflow cavity as shown in Figure 2. The uncertainty is adopted to be 10% of the measurement. |  $\dot{E_{B}}$ccHOPS-194 opening angle is measured directly from the C18O outflow cavity as shown in Figure 2. The uncertainty is adopted to be 10% of the measurement.
HOPS10 | 1.46 | 3.11 | 5.14 | 71.73 | 5.78E+41 | 4.75E+43 | 1.79 | 2.93 | 10.54 | 68.68 | 1.79E+42 | 4.94E+43
HOPS10 | 1.46 | 2.67 | 5.14 | 30.38 | 5.78E+41 | 8.30E+42 | 1.79 | 2.48 | 10.54 | 25.07 | 1.79E+42 | 6.49E+42
no jet |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
HOPS11 | 1.70 | 4.30 | 7.66 | 26.69 | 8.19E+41 | 4.08E+42 | 2.29 | 5.43 | 11.06 | 39.39 | 1.24E+42 | 7.64E+42
HOPS11 | 1.62 | 3.94 | 5.73 | 17.14 | 3.58E+41 | 1.51E+42 | 2.04 | 4.99 | 6.51 | 24.93 | 3.52E+41 | 2.74E+42
no jet |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
HOPS164 | 1.76 | 2.95 | 10.23 | 20.82 | 2.61E+42 | 1.00E+43 | 1.34 | 3.17 | 9.01 | 28.17 | 2.78E+42 | 1.44E+43
HOPS164 | 1.63 | 2.75 | 5.01 | 8.18 | 2.22E+41 | 6.44E+41 | 1.22 | 2.81 | 3.90 | 7.49 | 1.87E+41 | 4.58E+41
no jet |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
HOPS169 | 3.79 | 2.30 | 24.99 | 15.18 | 3.09E+42 | 2.02E+42 | 3.11 | 2.13 | 17.75 | 18.24 | 1.82E+42 | 2.44E+42
HOPS198 | 0.46 | 3.01 | 5.31 | 22.22 | 8.27E+41 | 4.62E+42 | 0.31 | 1.56 | 3.85 | 28.58 | 6.08E+41 | 1.25E+43
HOPS355 | 0.22 | 0.05 | 0.50 | 0.36 | 2.13E+40 | 2.76E+40 | 0.17 | 0.06 | 0.43 | 0.46 | 2.16E+40 | 3.87E+40
HOPS408 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA
HOPS127 | 0.34 | 2.37 | 2.39 | 6.59 | 2.81E+41 | 2.62E+41 | 0.23 | 2.42 | 1.47 | 6.82 | 1.55E+41 | 3.25E+41
HOPS130 | 0.71 | NA | 10.02 | NA | 1.76E+42 | NA | 0.48 | NA | 6.70 | NA | 1.21E+42 | NA
HOP135 | 0.19 | 13.37 | 0.39 | 43.09 | 1.99E+40 | 1.67E+42 | 0.19 | 11.52 | 0.28 | 36.11 | 1.14E+40 | 1.38E+42
HOPS157 | 0.93 | NA | 2.76 | NA | 1.93E+41 | NA | 1.27 | NA | 4.02 | NA | 3.38E+41 | NA
HOPS177 | 7.12 | 0.74 | 20.14 | 1.05 | 6.43E+41 | 1.92E+40 | 5.77 | 0.79 | 16.98 | 1.28 | 5.68E+41 | 3.01E+40
HOPS185 | 8.28 | 0.12 | 30.95 | 0.85 | 2.05E+42 | 6.29E+40 | 4.62 | 0.16 | 16.25 | 1.14 | 6.85E+41 | 8.25E+40
HOPS191 | 0.61 | 0.06 | 2.55 | 0.60 | 1.47E+41 | 7.33E+40 | 0.83 | 0.02 | 3.93 | 0.21 | 2.62E+41 | 2.02E+40
HOPS129 | 0.90 | 0.04 | 1.08 | 0.02 | 1.58E+40 | 1.63E+38 | 0.70 | 0.04 | 0.97 | 0.03 | 1.80E+40 | 1.87E+38
HOPS134 | NA | 0.39 | NA | 1.71 | NA | 1.32E+41 | NA | 0.29 | NA | 0.94 | NA | 6.31E+40
HOPS13 | 1.69 | NA | 6.34 | NA | 3.58E+41 | NA | 1.81 | NA | 7.98 | NA | 5.20E+41 | NA
HOPS150 | 0.31 | NA | 0.28 | NA | 6.68E+39 | NA | 0.15 | NA | 0.23 | NA | 6.97E+39 | NA
HOPS166 | 0.24 | 2.51 | 1.36 | 8.02 | 9.98E+40 | 3.93E+41 | 0.36 | 1.74 | 1.78 | 6.63 | 9.81E+40 | 3.90E+41
HOPS194 | NA | 0.16 | NA | 0.50 | NA | 1.94E+40 | NA | 0.17 | NA | 0.50 | NA | 1.68E+40
HOPS200 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA

ccHOPS-194 opening angle is measured directly from the C18O outflow cavity as
shown in Figure 2. The uncertainty is adopted to be 10% of the measurement.

In units of erg Myr-1.

Table 10: Molecular outflow rates using all outflow gas, within $5100-6460$ au
and $6460-7820$ au away from source

|  | 5100 | $-$ | 6460 | AU |  |  | 6460 | $-$ | 7820 | AU |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---
Source |  $\dot{M_{B}}$aaIn units of M⊙ Myr-1. |  $\dot{M_{R}}$aaIn units of M⊙ Myr-1. |  $\dot{P_{R}}$bbIn units of $M_{\odot}\,km\,s^{-1}$ Myr-1. |  $\dot{P_{B}}$bbIn units of $M_{\odot}\,km\,s^{-1}$ Myr-1. |  $\dot{E_{R}}$ccHOPS-194 opening angle is measured directly from the C18O outflow cavity as shown in Figure 2. The uncertainty is adopted to be 10% of the measurement. |  $\dot{E_{B}}$ccHOPS-194 opening angle is measured directly from the C18O outflow cavity as shown in Figure 2. The uncertainty is adopted to be 10% of the measurement. |  $\dot{M_{B}}$aaIn units of M⊙ Myr-1. |  $\dot{M_{R}}$aaIn units of M⊙ Myr-1. |  $\dot{P_{R}}$bbIn units of $M_{\odot}\,km\,s^{-1}$ Myr-1. |  $\dot{P_{B}}$bbIn units of $M_{\odot}\,km\,s^{-1}$ Myr-1. |  $\dot{E_{R}}$ccHOPS-194 opening angle is measured directly from the C18O outflow cavity as shown in Figure 2. The uncertainty is adopted to be 10% of the measurement. |  $\dot{E_{B}}$ccHOPS-194 opening angle is measured directly from the C18O outflow cavity as shown in Figure 2. The uncertainty is adopted to be 10% of the measurement.
HOPS10 | 1.96 | 3.00 | 14.87 | 78.66 | 3.34E+42 | 6.40E+43 | 1.77 | 2.82 | 13.43 | 95.12 | 3.63E+42 | 7.86E+43
HOPS10 | 1.96 | 2.41 | 14.87 | 19.39 | 3.34E+42 | 3.86E+42 | 1.77 | 2.08 | 13.43 | 20.96 | 3.63E+42 | 4.12E+42
no jet |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
HOPS11 | 2.24 | 4.95 | 10.04 | 36.55 | 1.01E+42 | 6.73E+42 | 2.05 | 3.73 | 7.74 | 28.12 | 5.51E+41 | 4.85E+42
HOPS11 | 2.05 | 4.76 | 6.63 | 29.34 | 3.59E+41 | 3.86E+42 | 2.05 | 3.22 | 7.74 | 15.31 | 5.51E+41 | 1.27E+42
no jet |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
HOPS164 | 0.50 | 3.22 | 5.61 | 29.14 | 2.58E+42 | 1.72E+43 | NA | 2.28 | 0.02 | 20.79 | 4.92E+39 | 1.29E+43
HOPS164 | 0.40 | 2.85 | 1.07 | 6.55 | 3.46E+40 | 1.93E+41 | NA | 2.03 | 0.01 | 4.88 | 2.28E+38 | 1.57E+41
no jet |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
HOPS169 | 2.54 | 1.71 | 16.10 | 16.66 | 1.73E+42 | 2.28E+42 | 1.48 | 1.52 | 10.20 | 14.62 | 1.02E+42 | 1.74E+42
HOPS198 | 0.15 | 1.24 | 1.50 | 16.93 | 1.87E+41 | 6.50E+42 | 0.09 | 0.33 | 0.74 | 2.05 | 7.41E+40 | 2.85E+41
HOPS355 | 0.14 | 0.05 | 0.36 | 0.41 | 1.54E+40 | 3.67E+40 | 0.15 | 0.04 | 0.42 | 0.31 | 1.65E+40 | 2.64E+40
HOPS408 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA
HOPS127 | 0.10 | 2.35 | 0.42 | 6.76 | 2.91E+40 | 4.17E+41 | 0.05 | 2.23 | 0.19 | 5.55 | 1.01E+40 | 1.97E+41
HOPS130 | 0.21 | NA | 2.35 | NA | 3.59E+41 | NA | 0.10 | NA | 0.76 | NA | 8.06E+40 | NA
HOP135 | 0.11 | 2.35 | 0.12 | 7.21 | 2.86E+39 | 2.73E+41 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA
HOPS157 | 0.31 | NA | 0.45 | NA | 9.73E+39 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA
HOPS177 | 5.31 | 1.03 | 16.03 | 1.67 | 5.65E+41 | 4.12E+40 | 3.88 | 1.25 | 11.95 | 1.96 | 4.45E+41 | 4.99E+40
HOPS185 | 5.30 | 0.18 | 19.20 | 1.25 | 8.30E+41 | 8.84E+40 | 5.18 | 0.06 | 18.55 | 0.42 | 7.12E+41 | 3.36E+40
HOPS191 | 0.80 | 0.01 | 4.45 | 0.13 | 3.53E+41 | 1.17E+40 | 0.36 | 0.01 | 1.50 | 0.05 | 9.17E+40 | 4.47E+39
HOPS129 | 0.37 | 0.04 | 0.55 | 0.03 | 1.14E+40 | 1.88E+38 | 0.25 | 0.02 | 0.40 | 0.01 | 9.21E+39 | 8.83E+37
HOPS134 | NA | 0.19 | NA | 0.37 | NA | 7.63E+39 | NA | 0.10 | NA | 0.22 | NA | 5.16E+39
HOPS13 | 0.18 | NA | 0.74 | NA | 3.95E+40 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA
HOPS150 | 0.05 | NA | 0.03 | NA | 2.70E+38 | NA | 0.06 | NA | 0.07 | NA | 1.66E+39 | NA
HOPS166 | 0.33 | 1.46 | 1.62 | 5.62 | 8.71E+40 | 3.35E+41 | 0.32 | 0.76 | 1.64 | 2.89 | 8.96E+40 | 1.61E+41
HOPS194 | NA | 0.13 | NA | 0.37 | NA | 1.13E+40 | NA | 0.10 | NA | 0.28 | NA | 8.95E+39
HOPS200 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA

ccHOPS-194 opening angle is measured directly from the C18O outflow cavity as
shown in Figure 2. The uncertainty is adopted to be 10% of the measurement.

In units of erg Myr-1.

Table 11: Molecular outflow rates using all outflow gas, within $7820-9180$ au
away from source

|  | 7820 | $-$ | 9180 | AU |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---
Source |  $\dot{M_{B}}$aaIn units of M⊙ Myr-1. |  $\dot{M_{R}}$aaIn units of M⊙ Myr-1. |  $\dot{P_{R}}$bbIn units of $M_{\odot}\,km\,s^{-1}$ Myr-1. |  $\dot{P_{B}}$bbIn units of $M_{\odot}\,km\,s^{-1}$ Myr-1. |  $\dot{E_{R}}$ccHOPS-194 opening angle is measured directly from the C18O outflow cavity as shown in Figure 2. The uncertainty is adopted to be 10% of the measurement. |  $\dot{E_{B}}$ccHOPS-194 opening angle is measured directly from the C18O outflow cavity as shown in Figure 2. The uncertainty is adopted to be 10% of the measurement.
HOPS10 | 0.79 | 1.90 | 4.05 | 76.61 | 5.59E+41 | 6.43E+43
HOPS10 | 0.79 | 1.29 | 4.05 | 15.65 | 5.59E+41 | 3.03E+42
no jet |  |  |  |  |  |
HOPS11 | 1.63 | 2.30 | 6.90 | 21.40 | 4.60E+41 | 3.63E+42
HOPS11 | 1.63 | 1.32 | 6.90 | 4.48 | 4.60E+41 | 1.88E+41
no jet |  |  |  |  |  |
HOPS164 | NA | 1.77 | NA | 19.95 | NA | 1.41E+43
HOPS164 | NA | 1.55 | NA | 3.89 | NA | 1.46E+41
no jet |  |  |  |  |  |
HOPS169 | 1.09 | 1.38 | 8.87 | 11.86 | 8.80E+41 | 1.22E+42
HOPS198 | 0.10 | NA | 0.88 | NA | 9.77E+40 | NA
HOPS355 | 0.13 | 0.03 | 0.34 | 0.19 | 1.31E+40 | 1.22E+40
HOPS408 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA
HOPS127 | 0.10 | 2.00 | 0.33 | 5.47 | 1.73E+40 | 2.04E+41
HOPS130 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA
HOP135 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA
HOPS157 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA
HOPS177 | 1.31 | 1.14 | 4.13 | 1.76 | 1.61E+41 | 4.43E+40
HOPS185 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA
HOPS191 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA
HOPS129 | 0.13 | NA | 0.28 | NA | 8.94E+39 | 4.91E+35
HOPS134 | NA | 0.08 | NA | 0.16 | NA | 4.10E+39
HOPS13 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA
HOPS150 | 0.06 | NA | 0.08 | NA | 1.88E+39 | NA
HOPS166 | 0.14 | 0.49 | 0.66 | 2.35 | 3.31E+40 | 1.58E+41
HOPS194 | NA | 0.05 | NA | 0.13 | NA | 4.10E+39
HOPS200 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA

ccHOPS-194 opening angle is measured directly from the C18O outflow cavity as
shown in Figure 2. The uncertainty is adopted to be 10% of the measurement.

In units of erg Myr-1.

Table 12: Molecular outflow rates for gas with $v_{out}>1$ km s-1, within
$2380-3740$ au and $3749-5100$ au away from source

|  | 2380 | $-$ | 3740 | AU |  |  | 3740 | $-$ | 5100 | AU |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---
Source |  $\dot{M_{B}}$aaIn units of M⊙ Myr-1. |  $\dot{M_{R}}$aaIn units of M⊙ Myr-1. |  $\dot{P_{R}}$bbIn units of $M_{\odot}\,km\,s^{-1}$ Myr-1. |  $\dot{P_{B}}$bbIn units of $M_{\odot}\,km\,s^{-1}$ Myr-1. |  $\dot{E_{R}}$ccHOPS-194 opening angle is measured directly from the C18O outflow cavity as shown in Figure 2. The uncertainty is adopted to be 10% of the measurement. |  $\dot{E_{B}}$ccHOPS-194 opening angle is measured directly from the C18O outflow cavity as shown in Figure 2. The uncertainty is adopted to be 10% of the measurement. |  $\dot{M_{B}}$aaIn units of M⊙ Myr-1. |  $\dot{M_{R}}$aaIn units of M⊙ Myr-1. |  $\dot{P_{R}}$bbIn units of $M_{\odot}\,km\,s^{-1}$ Myr-1. |  $\dot{P_{B}}$bbIn units of $M_{\odot}\,km\,s^{-1}$ Myr-1. |  $\dot{E_{R}}$ccHOPS-194 opening angle is measured directly from the C18O outflow cavity as shown in Figure 2. The uncertainty is adopted to be 10% of the measurement. |  $\dot{E_{B}}$ccHOPS-194 opening angle is measured directly from the C18O outflow cavity as shown in Figure 2. The uncertainty is adopted to be 10% of the measurement.
HOPS10 | 1.13 | 3.11 | 4.93 | 72.53 | 6.46e+41 | 4.86E+43 | 1.43E+00 | 2.93 | 10.44 | 69.29 | 1.95E+42 | 5.02E+43
HOPS10 | 1.13 | 3.11 | 4.93 | 72.53 | 6.46e+41 | 4.86E+43 | 1.43E+00 | 2.93 | 10.44 | 69.29 | 1.95E+42 | 5.02E+43
no jet |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
HOPS11 | 1.49 | 4.03 | 7.51 | 26.96 | 8.32e+41 | 4.42E+42 | 2.02E+00 | 5.19 | 10.93 | 39.85 | 1.29E+42 | 8.11E+42
HOPS11 | 1.49 | 4.03 | 7.51 | 26.96 | 8.32e+41 | 4.42E+42 | 2.02E+00 | 5.19 | 10.93 | 39.85 | 1.29E+42 | 8.11E+42
no jet |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
HOPS164 | 1.76 | 2.95 | 10.23 | 20.82 | 2.61e+42 | 1.00E+43 | 1.34E+00 | 3.17 | 9.01 | 28.17 | 2.78E+42 | 1.44E+43
HOPS164 | 1.76 | 2.95 | 10.23 | 20.82 | 2.61e+42 | 1.00E+43 | 1.34E+00 | 3.17 | 9.01 | 28.17 | 2.78E+42 | 1.44E+43
no jet |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
HOPS169 | 3.35 | 1.83 | 24.73 | 14.95 | 3.11e+42 | 2.07E+42 | 2.59E+00 | 1.67 | 17.43 | 18.02 | 1.84E+42 | 2.49E+42
HOPS198 | 0.50 | 3.04 | 8.71 | 30.68 | 5.6e+42 | 2.53E+43 | 3.88E-01 | 1.59 | 9.90 | 33.63 | 7.09E+42 | 2.28E+43
HOPS355 | 0.13 | 0.05 | 0.49 | 0.41 | 3.15e+40 | 4.95E+40 | 1.03E-01 | 0.06 | 0.42 | 0.55 | 2.82E+40 | 8.30E+40
HOPS408 | NA | NA | NA | NA | 0 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA
HOPS127 | 0.35 | 2.05 | 2.50 | 6.53 | 3.31e+41 | 3.49E+41 | 2.29E-01 | 2.14 | 1.62 | 6.78 | 2.21E+41 | 4.12E+41
HOPS130 | 0.71 | NA | 10.76 | NA | 2.42e+42 | NA | 4.90E-01 | NA | 7.45 | NA | 1.83E+42 | NA
HOP135 | 0.09 | 12.89 | 0.44 | 43.14 | 8.42e+40 | 1.99E+42 | 6.40E-02 | 10.97 | 0.28 | 35.97 | 5.82E+40 | 1.57E+42
HOPS157 | 0.59 | NA | 2.54 | NA | 2.12e+41 | NA | 8.42E-01 | NA | 3.74 | NA | 3.62E+41 | NA
HOPS177 | 7.13 | 0.55 | 20.51 | 1.42 | 8.64e+41 | 4.20E+41 | 5.78E+00 | 0.60 | 17.38 | 1.67 | 8.22E+41 | 4.34E+41
HOPS185 | 8.28 | 0.13 | 31.43 | 2.27 | 2.48e+42 | 1.61E+42 | 4.62E+00 | 0.18 | 16.68 | 3.21 | 1.08E+42 | 2.33E+42
HOPS191 | 0.63 | 0.07 | 3.61 | 1.47 | 9.73e+41 | 9.09E+41 | 8.54E-01 | 0.03 | 5.34 | 0.48 | 1.37E+42 | 2.75E+41
HOPS129 | 0.55 | NA | 0.93 | NA | 7.78e+40 | NA | 4.82E-01 | NA | 0.97 | NA | 9.78E+40 | NA
HOPS134 | NA | 0.40 | NA | 2.22 | 0 | 3.53E+41 | NA | 0.30 | NA | 1.43 | NA | 2.92E+41
HOPS13 | 1.68 | NA | 6.33 | NA | 3.58e+41 | NA | 1.82E+00 | NA | 8.13 | NA | 5.59E+41 | NA
HOPS150 | 0.08 | NA | 0.51 | NA | 1.44e+41 | NA | 7.36E-02 | NA | 0.51 | NA | 1.39E+41 | NA
HOPS166 | 0.25 | 2.52 | 1.46 | 8.17 | 1.33e+41 | 4.23E+41 | 3.64E-01 | 1.75 | 1.92 | 6.76 | 1.47E+41 | 4.16E+41
HOPS194 | NA | 0.21 | NA | 1.82 | 0 | 4.41E+41 | NA | 0.22 | NA | 1.94 | NA | 4.73E+41
HOPS200 | NA | NA | NA | NA | 0 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA

ccHOPS-194 opening angle is measured directly from the C18O outflow cavity as
shown in Figure 2. The uncertainty is adopted to be 10% of the measurement.

In units of erg Myr-1.

Table 13: Molecular outflow rates for gas with $v_{out}>1$ km s-1, within
$5100-6460$ au and $6460-7820$ au away from source

|  | 5100 | $-$ | 6460 | AU |  |  | 6460 | $-$ | 7820 | AU |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---
Source |  $\dot{M_{B}}$aaIn units of M⊙ Myr-1. |  $\dot{M_{R}}$aaIn units of M⊙ Myr-1. |  $\dot{P_{R}}$bbIn units of $M_{\odot}\,km\,s^{-1}$ Myr-1. |  $\dot{P_{B}}$bbIn units of $M_{\odot}\,km\,s^{-1}$ Myr-1. |  $\dot{E_{R}}$ccHOPS-194 opening angle is measured directly from the C18O outflow cavity as shown in Figure 2. The uncertainty is adopted to be 10% of the measurement. |  $\dot{E_{B}}$ccHOPS-194 opening angle is measured directly from the C18O outflow cavity as shown in Figure 2. The uncertainty is adopted to be 10% of the measurement. |  $\dot{M_{B}}$aaIn units of M⊙ Myr-1. |  $\dot{M_{R}}$aaIn units of M⊙ Myr-1. |  $\dot{P_{R}}$bbIn units of $M_{\odot}\,km\,s^{-1}$ Myr-1. |  $\dot{P_{B}}$bbIn units of $M_{\odot}\,km\,s^{-1}$ Myr-1. |  $\dot{E_{R}}$ccHOPS-194 opening angle is measured directly from the C18O outflow cavity as shown in Figure 2. The uncertainty is adopted to be 10% of the measurement. |  $\dot{E_{B}}$ccHOPS-194 opening angle is measured directly from the C18O outflow cavity as shown in Figure 2. The uncertainty is adopted to be 10% of the measurement.
HOPS10 | 1.60 | 3.01 | 14.76 | 79.83 | 3.52E+42 | 6.55E+43 | 1.43 | 2.83 | 13.44 | 96.41 | 3.88E+42 | 8.03E+43
HOPS10 | 1.60 | 3.01 | 14.76 | 79.83 | 3.52E+42 | 6.55E+43 | 1.43 | 2.83 | 13.44 | 96.41 | 3.88E+42 | 8.03E+43
no jet |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
HOPS11 | 1.95 | 4.79 | 9.92 | 37.04 | 1.07E+42 | 7.18E+42 | 1.66 | 3.62 | 7.73 | 28.53 | 6.77E+41 | 5.21E+42
HOPS11 | 1.95 | 4.79 | 9.92 | 37.04 | 1.07E+42 | 7.18E+42 | 1.66 | 3.62 | 7.73 | 28.53 | 6.77E+41 | 5.21E+42
no jet |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
HOPS164 | 0.50 | 3.22 | 5.61 | 29.14 | 2.58E+42 | 1.72E+43 | NA | 2.28 | 0.02 | 20.79 | 4.92E+39 | 1.29E+43
HOPS164 | 0.50 | 3.22 | 5.61 | 29.14 | 2.58E+42 | 1.72E+43 | NA | 2.28 | 0.02 | 20.79 | 4.92E+39 | 1.29E+43
no jet |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
HOPS169 | 2.25 | 1.49 | 15.94 | 16.63 | 1.75E+42 | 2.35E+42 | 1.40 | 1.47 | 10.22 | 14.80 | 1.05E+42 | 1.86E+42
HOPS198 | 0.16 | 1.28 | 3.38 | 21.88 | 3.17E+42 | 1.64E+43 | 0.09 | 0.34 | 1.82 | 3.32 | 1.97E+42 | 3.40E+42
HOPS355 | 0.10 | 0.05 | 0.38 | 0.48 | 2.95E+40 | 6.94E+40 | 0.13 | 0.04 | 0.47 | 0.41 | 3.99E+40 | 6.89E+40
HOPS408 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA
HOPS127 | 0.10 | 1.94 | 0.52 | 6.62 | 6.98E+40 | 5.03E+41 | 0.05 | 1.82 | 0.26 | 5.44 | 4.02E+40 | 2.90E+41
HOPS130 | 0.22 | NA | 3.14 | NA | 1.04E+42 | NA | 0.11 | NA | 1.81 | NA | 9.79E+41 | NA
HOP135 | 0.03 | 2.22 | 0.09 | 7.23 | 1.61E+40 | 3.61E+41 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA
HOPS157 | 0.20 | NA | 0.39 | NA | 1.99E+40 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA
HOPS177 | 5.31 | 0.78 | 16.46 | 2.00 | 8.29E+41 | 4.27E+41 | 3.89 | 0.94 | 12.30 | 2.51 | 6.50E+41 | 6.58E+41
HOPS185 | 5.31 | 0.21 | 19.63 | 4.35 | 1.19E+42 | 3.43E+42 | 5.18 | 0.09 | 18.87 | 3.09 | 1.00E+42 | 2.95E+42
HOPS191 | 0.82 | 0.02 | 5.53 | 0.49 | 1.19E+42 | 3.93E+41 | 0.37 | 0.01 | 2.27 | 0.16 | 6.96E+41 | 1.01E+41
HOPS129 | 0.25 | NA | 0.57 | NA | 6.62E+40 | NA | 0.18 | NA | 0.54 | NA | 1.03E+41 | NA
HOPS134 | NA | 0.21 | NA | 0.84 | NA | 2.20E+41 | NA | 0.11 | NA | 0.55 | NA | 1.65E+41
HOPS13 | 0.18 | NA | 0.74 | NA | 3.95E+40 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA
HOPS150 | 0.04 | NA | 1.04 | NA | 4.03E+41 | NA | 0.02 | NA | 0.17 | NA | 5.09E+40 | NA
HOPS166 | 0.34 | 1.47 | 1.87 | 5.83 | 1.46E+41 | 3.75E+41 | 0.32 | 0.76 | 1.74 | 2.92 | 1.24E+41 | 1.68E+41
HOPS194 | NA | 0.19 | NA | 1.92 | NA | 5.09E+41 | NA | 0.14 | NA | 1.59 | NA | 4.33E+41
HOPS200 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA

ccHOPS-194 opening angle is measured directly from the C18O outflow cavity as
shown in Figure 2. The uncertainty is adopted to be 10% of the measurement.

In units of erg Myr-1.

Table 14: Molecular outflow rates for gas with $v_{out}>1$ km s-1, within
$7820-9180$ au away from source

|  | 7820 | $-$ | 9180 | AU |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---
Source |  $\dot{M_{B}}$aaIn units of M⊙ Myr-1. |  $\dot{M_{R}}$aaIn units of M⊙ Myr-1. |  $\dot{P_{R}}$bbIn units of $M_{\odot}\,km\,s^{-1}$ Myr-1. |  $\dot{P_{B}}$bbIn units of $M_{\odot}\,km\,s^{-1}$ Myr-1. |  $\dot{E_{R}}$ccHOPS-194 opening angle is measured directly from the C18O outflow cavity as shown in Figure 2. The uncertainty is adopted to be 10% of the measurement. |  $\dot{E_{B}}$ccHOPS-194 opening angle is measured directly from the C18O outflow cavity as shown in Figure 2. The uncertainty is adopted to be 10% of the measurement.
HOPS10 | 0.66 | 1.91 | 5.65 | 78.07 | 1.55E+42 | 6.62E+43
HOPS10 | 0.66 | 1.91 | 5.65 | 78.07 | 1.55E+42 | 6.62E+43
no jet |  |  |  |  |  |
HOPS11 | 1.45 | 2.28 | 7.00 | 22.14 | 5.64E+41 | 4.13E+42
HOPS11 | 1.45 | 2.28 | 7.00 | 22.14 | 5.64E+41 | 4.13E+42
no jet |  |  |  |  |  |
HOPS164 | NA | 1.77 | NA | 19.95 | NA | 1.41E+43
HOPS164 | NA | 1.77 | NA | 19.95 | NA | 1.41E+43
no jet |  |  |  |  |  |
HOPS169 | 1.08 | 1.37 | 9.01 | 12.16 | 9.49E+41 | 1.40E+42
HOPS198 | 0.11 | NA | 3.18 | NA | 4.21E+42 | NA
HOPS355 | 0.11 | 0.04 | 0.39 | 0.36 | 3.50E+40 | 9.02E+40
HOPS408 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA
HOPS127 | 0.10 | 1.71 | 0.46 | 5.56 | 7.15E+40 | 3.61E+41
HOPS130 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA
HOP135 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA
HOPS157 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA
HOPS177 | 1.31 | 0.86 | 4.35 | 2.48 | 2.93E+41 | 7.40E+41
HOPS185 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA
HOPS191 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA
HOPS129 | 0.12 | NA | 0.36 | NA | 5.06E+40 | NA
HOPS134 | NA | 0.08 | NA | 0.54 | NA | 1.89E+41
HOPS13 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA
HOPS150 | 0.03 | NA | 0.22 | NA | 6.30E+40 | NA
HOPS166 | 0.14 | 0.49 | 0.73 | 2.40 | 5.67E+40 | 1.68E+41
HOPS194 | NA | 0.08 | NA | 1.08 | NA | 3.10E+41
HOPS200 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA

ccHOPS-194 opening angle is measured directly from the C18O outflow cavity as
shown in Figure 2. The uncertainty is adopted to be 10% of the measurement.

In units of erg Myr-1.

Table 15: Molecular outflow rates for gas with $v_{out}>2$ km s-1, within
$2380-3740$ au and $3749-5100$ au away from source

|  | 2380 | $-$ | 3740 | AU |  |  | 3740 | $-$ | 5100 | AU |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---
Source |  $\dot{M_{B}}$aaIn units of M⊙ Myr-1. |  $\dot{M_{R}}$aaIn units of M⊙ Myr-1. |  $\dot{P_{R}}$bbIn units of $M_{\odot}\,km\,s^{-1}$ Myr-1. |  $\dot{P_{B}}$bbIn units of $M_{\odot}\,km\,s^{-1}$ Myr-1. |  $\dot{E_{R}}$ccHOPS-194 opening angle is measured directly from the C18O outflow cavity as shown in Figure 2. The uncertainty is adopted to be 10% of the measurement. |  $\dot{E_{B}}$ccHOPS-194 opening angle is measured directly from the C18O outflow cavity as shown in Figure 2. The uncertainty is adopted to be 10% of the measurement. |  $\dot{M_{B}}$aaIn units of M⊙ Myr-1. |  $\dot{M_{R}}$aaIn units of M⊙ Myr-1. |  $\dot{P_{R}}$bbIn units of $M_{\odot}\,km\,s^{-1}$ Myr-1. |  $\dot{P_{B}}$bbIn units of $M_{\odot}\,km\,s^{-1}$ Myr-1. |  $\dot{E_{R}}$ccHOPS-194 opening angle is measured directly from the C18O outflow cavity as shown in Figure 2. The uncertainty is adopted to be 10% of the measurement. |  $\dot{E_{B}}$ccHOPS-194 opening angle is measured directly from the C18O outflow cavity as shown in Figure 2. The uncertainty is adopted to be 10% of the measurement.
HOPS10 | 0.39 | 3.11 | 4.02 | 72.53 | 6.35E+41 | 4.86E+43 | 0.67 | 2.93 | 9.52 | 69.29 | 1.94E+42 | 5.02E+43
HOPS10 | 0.39 | 3.11 | 4.02 | 72.53 | 6.35E+41 | 4.86E+43 | 0.67 | 2.93 | 9.52 | 69.29 | 1.94E+42 | 5.02E+43
no jet |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
HOPS11 | 1.00 | 3.18 | 6.78 | 25.76 | 8.21E+41 | 4.40E+42 | 1.35 | 4.25 | 9.94 | 38.55 | 1.27E+42 | 8.09E+42
HOPS11 | 1.00 | 3.18 | 6.78 | 25.76 | 8.21E+41 | 4.40E+42 | 1.35 | 4.25 | 9.94 | 38.55 | 1.27E+42 | 8.09E+42
no jet |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
HOPS164 | 1.13 | 1.56 | 9.26 | 18.50 | 2.59E+42 | 1.00E+43 | 0.95 | 1.70 | 8.39 | 25.75 | 2.77E+42 | 1.43E+43
HOPS164 | 1.13 | 1.56 | 9.26 | 18.50 | 2.59E+42 | 1.00E+43 | 0.95 | 1.70 | 8.39 | 25.75 | 2.77E+42 | 1.43E+43
no jet |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
HOPS169 | 2.77 | 1.25 | 23.87 | 14.08 | 3.09E+42 | 2.05E+42 | 2.26 | 1.58 | 16.94 | 17.86 | 1.83E+42 | 2.48E+42
HOPS198 | 0.50 | 3.04 | 8.71 | 30.68 | 5.60E+42 | 2.53E+43 | 0.39 | 1.59 | 9.90 | 33.63 | 7.09E+42 | 2.28E+43
HOPS355 | 0.13 | 0.05 | 0.49 | 0.41 | 3.15E+40 | 4.95E+40 | 0.10 | 0.06 | 0.42 | 0.55 | 2.82E+40 | 8.30E+40
HOPS408 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA
HOPS127 | 0.26 | 1.42 | 2.36 | 5.59 | 3.29E+41 | 3.35E+41 | 0.17 | 1.33 | 1.52 | 5.58 | 2.20E+41 | 3.94E+41
HOPS130 | 0.71 | NA | 10.76 | NA | 2.42E+42 | NA | 0.49 | NA | 7.45 | NA | 1.83E+42 | NA
HOP135 | 0.06 | 9.81 | 0.39 | 38.52 | 8.35E+40 | 1.92E+42 | 0.03 | 8.11 | 0.24 | 31.68 | 5.77E+40 | 1.51E+42
HOPS157 | 0.33 | NA | 2.21 | NA | 2.08E+41 | NA | 0.39 | NA | 3.16 | NA | 3.54E+41 | NA
HOPS177 | 5.46 | 0.11 | 17.88 | 0.85 | 8.22E+41 | 4.13E+41 | 4.49 | 0.16 | 15.37 | 1.10 | 7.90E+41 | 4.26E+41
HOPS185 | 7.79 | 0.13 | 30.51 | 2.27 | 2.47E+42 | 1.61E+42 | 4.45 | 0.18 | 16.35 | 3.21 | 1.07E+42 | 2.33E+42
HOPS191 | 0.45 | 0.07 | 3.34 | 1.47 | 9.69E+41 | 9.09E+41 | 0.65 | 0.03 | 5.02 | 0.48 | 1.36E+42 | 2.75E+41
HOPS129 | 0.08 | NA | 0.34 | NA | 7.03E+40 | NA | 0.12 | NA | 0.51 | NA | 9.19E+40 | NA
HOPS134 | NA | 0.22 | NA | 1.98 | NA | 3.50E+41 | NA | 0.12 | NA | 1.16 | NA | 2.88E+41
HOPS13 | 1.56 | NA | 6.17 | NA | 3.55E+41 | NA | 1.76 | NA | 8.04 | NA | 5.58E+41 | NA
HOPS150 | 0.05 | NA | 0.46 | NA | 1.43E+41 | NA | 0.06 | NA | 0.48 | NA | 1.38E+41 | NA
HOPS166 | 0.25 | 1.73 | 1.46 | 6.85 | 1.33E+41 | 4.01E+41 | 0.36 | 1.20 | 1.92 | 5.86 | 1.47E+41 | 4.01E+41
HOPS194 | NA | 0.16 | NA | 1.74 | NA | 4.39E+41 | NA | 0.18 | NA | 1.86 | NA | 4.72E+41
HOPS200 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA

ccHOPS-194 opening angle is measured directly from the C18O outflow cavity as
shown in Figure 2. The uncertainty is adopted to be 10% of the measurement.

In units of erg Myr-1.

Table 16: Molecular outflow rates for gas with $v_{out}>1$ km s-1, within
$5100-6460$ au and $6460-7820$ au away from source

|  | 5100 | $-$ | 6460 | AU |  |  | 6460 | $-$ | 7820 | AU |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---
Source |  $\dot{M_{B}}$aaIn units of M⊙ Myr-1. |  $\dot{M_{R}}$aaIn units of M⊙ Myr-1. |  $\dot{P_{R}}$bbIn units of $M_{\odot}\,km\,s^{-1}$ Myr-1. |  $\dot{P_{B}}$bbIn units of $M_{\odot}\,km\,s^{-1}$ Myr-1. |  $\dot{E_{R}}$ccHOPS-194 opening angle is measured directly from the C18O outflow cavity as shown in Figure 2. The uncertainty is adopted to be 10% of the measurement. |  $\dot{E_{B}}$ccHOPS-194 opening angle is measured directly from the C18O outflow cavity as shown in Figure 2. The uncertainty is adopted to be 10% of the measurement. |  $\dot{M_{B}}$aaIn units of M⊙ Myr-1. |  $\dot{M_{R}}$aaIn units of M⊙ Myr-1. |  $\dot{P_{R}}$bbIn units of $M_{\odot}\,km\,s^{-1}$ Myr-1. |  $\dot{P_{B}}$bbIn units of $M_{\odot}\,km\,s^{-1}$ Myr-1. |  $\dot{E_{R}}$ccHOPS-194 opening angle is measured directly from the C18O outflow cavity as shown in Figure 2. The uncertainty is adopted to be 10% of the measurement. |  $\dot{E_{B}}$ccHOPS-194 opening angle is measured directly from the C18O outflow cavity as shown in Figure 2. The uncertainty is adopted to be 10% of the measurement.
HOPS10 | 0.81 | 3.01 | 13.79 | 79.83 | 3.51E+42 | 6.55E+43 | 0.67 | 2.83 | 12.50 | 96.41 | 3.87E+42 | 8.03E+43
HOPS10 | 0.81 | 3.01 | 13.79 | 79.83 | 3.51E+42 | 6.55E+43 | 0.67 | 2.83 | 12.50 | 96.41 | 3.87E+42 | 8.03E+43
no jet |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
HOPS11 | 1.31 | 4.21 | 8.98 | 36.26 | 1.05E+42 | 7.17E+42 | 1.18 | 3.32 | 7.03 | 28.11 | 6.67E+41 | 5.20E+42
HOPS11 | 1.31 | 4.21 | 8.98 | 36.26 | 1.05E+42 | 7.17E+42 | 1.18 | 3.32 | 7.03 | 28.11 | 6.67E+41 | 5.20E+42
no jet |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
HOPS164 | 0.38 | 1.73 | 5.43 | 26.69 | 2.58E+42 | 1.72E+43 | NA | 1.27 | 0.02 | 19.13 | 4.90E+39 | 1.28E+43
HOPS164 | 0.38 | 1.73 | 5.43 | 26.69 | 2.58E+42 | 1.72E+43 | NA | 1.27 | 0.02 | 19.13 | 4.90E+39 | 1.28E+43
no jet |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
HOPS169 | 1.94 | 1.48 | 15.51 | 16.61 | 1.75E+42 | 2.35E+42 | 1.24 | 1.46 | 9.97 | 14.78 | 1.04E+42 | 1.86E+42
HOPS198 | 0.16 | 1.28 | 3.38 | 21.88 | 3.17E+42 | 1.64E+43 | 0.09 | 0.34 | 1.82 | 3.32 | 1.97E+42 | 3.40E+42
HOPS355 | 0.10 | 0.05 | 0.38 | 0.48 | 2.95E+40 | 6.94E+40 | 0.13 | 0.04 | 0.47 | 0.41 | 3.99E+40 | 6.89E+40
HOPS408 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA
HOPS127 | 0.06 | 1.21 | 0.46 | 5.57 | 6.89E+40 | 4.87E+41 | 0.03 | 1.21 | 0.21 | 4.55 | 3.95E+40 | 2.76E+41
HOPS130 | 0.22 | NA | 3.14 | NA | 1.04E+42 | NA | 0.11 | NA | 1.81 | NA | 9.79E+41 | NA
HOP135 | 0.01 | 1.60 | 0.06 | 6.29 | 1.59E+40 | 3.46E+41 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA
HOPS157 | 0.04 | NA | 0.18 | NA | 1.70E+40 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA
HOPS177 | 4.13 | 0.19 | 14.62 | 1.24 | 7.99E+41 | 4.17E+41 | 3.00 | 0.20 | 10.94 | 1.59 | 6.29E+41 | 6.46E+41
HOPS185 | 5.18 | 0.21 | 19.39 | 4.35 | 1.18E+42 | 3.43E+42 | 5.05 | 0.09 | 18.63 | 3.09 | 9.98E+41 | 2.95E+42
HOPS191 | 0.65 | 0.02 | 5.27 | 0.49 | 1.19E+42 | 3.93E+41 | 0.26 | 0.01 | 2.12 | 0.16 | 6.94E+41 | 1.01E+41
HOPS129 | 0.08 | NA | 0.36 | NA | 6.34E+40 | NA | 0.07 | NA | 0.39 | NA | 1.01E+41 | NA
HOPS134 | NA | 0.08 | NA | 0.63 | NA | 2.17E+41 | NA | 0.06 | NA | 0.47 | NA | 1.64E+41
HOPS13 | 0.18 | NA | 0.74 | NA | 3.95E+40 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA
HOPS150 | 0.04 | NA | 1.03 | NA | 4.03E+41 | NA | 0.01 | NA | 0.16 | NA | 5.06E+40 | NA
HOPS166 | 0.34 | 1.00 | 1.87 | 5.06 | 1.46E+41 | 3.63E+41 | 0.32 | 0.51 | 1.74 | 2.49 | 1.24E+41 | 1.61E+41
HOPS194 | NA | 0.15 | NA | 1.85 | NA | 5.08E+41 | NA | 0.12 | NA | 1.55 | NA | 4.32E+41
HOPS200 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA

ccHOPS-194 opening angle is measured directly from the C18O outflow cavity as
shown in Figure 2. The uncertainty is adopted to be 10% of the measurement.

In units of erg Myr-1.

Table 17: Molecular outflow rates for gas with $v_{out}>1$ km s-1, within
$7820-9180$ au away from source

|  | 7820 | $-$ | 9180 | AU |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---
Source |  $\dot{M_{B}}$aaIn units of M⊙ Myr-1. |  $\dot{M_{R}}$aaIn units of M⊙ Myr-1. |  $\dot{P_{R}}$bbIn units of $M_{\odot}\,km\,s^{-1}$ Myr-1. |  $\dot{P_{B}}$bbIn units of $M_{\odot}\,km\,s^{-1}$ Myr-1. |  $\dot{E_{R}}$ccHOPS-194 opening angle is measured directly from the C18O outflow cavity as shown in Figure 2. The uncertainty is adopted to be 10% of the measurement. |  $\dot{E_{B}}$ccHOPS-194 opening angle is measured directly from the C18O outflow cavity as shown in Figure 2. The uncertainty is adopted to be 10% of the measurement.
HOPS10 | 0.32 | 1.91 | 5.23 | 78.07 | 1.54E+42 | 6.62E+43
HOPS10 | 0.32 | 1.91 | 5.23 | 78.07 | 1.54E+42 | 6.62E+43
no jet |  |  |  |  |  |
HOPS11 | 1.18 | 2.18 | 6.59 | 22.01 | 5.58E+41 | 4.13E+42
HOPS11 | 1.18 | 2.18 | 6.59 | 22.01 | 5.58E+41 | 4.13E+42
no jet |  |  |  |  |  |
HOPS164 | NA | 1.00 | NA | 18.66 | NA | 1.40E+43
HOPS164 | NA | 1.00 | NA | 18.66 | NA | 1.40E+43
no jet |  |  |  |  |  |
HOPS169 | 1.02 | 1.37 | 8.91 | 12.15 | 9.47E+41 | 1.40E+42
HOPS198 | 0.11 | NA | 3.18 | NA | 4.21E+42 | NA
HOPS355 | 0.11 | 0.04 | 0.39 | 0.36 | 3.50E+40 | 9.02E+40
HOPS408 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA
HOPS127 | 0.07 | 1.29 | 0.40 | 4.91 | 7.05E+40 | 3.50E+41
HOPS130 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA
HOP135 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA
HOPS157 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA
HOPS177 | 0.96 | 0.17 | 3.81 | 1.64 | 2.84E+41 | 7.29E+41
HOPS185 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA
HOPS191 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA
HOPS129 | 0.05 | NA | 0.28 | NA | 4.96E+40 | NA
HOPS134 | NA | 0.05 | NA | 0.49 | NA | 1.88E+41
HOPS13 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA
HOPS150 | 0.02 | NA | 0.20 | NA | 6.27E+40 | NA
HOPS166 | 0.14 | 0.39 | 0.73 | 2.23 | 5.67E+40 | 1.65E+41
HOPS194 | NA | 0.07 | NA | 1.06 | NA | 3.10E+41
HOPS200 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA

ccHOPS-194 opening angle is measured directly from the C18O outflow cavity as
shown in Figure 2. The uncertainty is adopted to be 10% of the measurement.

In units of erg Myr-1.

##  Appendix F Two-dimensional Mass, Momentum, Energy, Mass rate, Momentum
rate (Force), and Energy rate (mechanical luminosity) maps for all outflows

In this section, we presents the two-dimensional mass, momentum, energy, mass
rate, momentum rate (force), and energy rate (mechanical luminosity) maps for
all outflows. All the rate maps are computed from our Pixel Flux-tracing
Technique (PFT). Instead of a single rate value obtained by previous methods,
the PFT allows us to compute two-dimensional molecular outflow instantaneous
rates maps for the first time.

Figure 21: HOPS-10 molecular outflow mass, momentum, and energy maps (panels
in left column), and the corresponding rate maps (panels in right column). The
red ellipse in the bottom left of each panel represents the synthesized beam.
Note that the pixel size is the same for all maps and is 0$\farcs$17 $\times$
0$\farcs$17\.

Figure 22: HOPS-10 outflow mass, momentum, energy maps, and the corresponding
instantaneous rate maps. Note for this figure set, we exclude the high-
velocity jet components. The pixel size is 0$\farcs$17 $\times$ 0$\farcs$17\.
The red ellipses in the bottom left of plots represent the synthesized beam.

Figure 23: HOPS-11 outflow mass, momentum, energy maps, and the corresponding
instantaneous rate maps. Note that the pixel size is 0$\farcs$17 $\times$
0$\farcs$17\. The red ellipses in the bottom left of plots represent the
synthesized beam.

Figure 24: HOPS-11 outflow mass, momentum, energy maps, and the corresponding
instantaneous rate maps. Note for this figure set, we exclude the high-
velocity jet components. Note that the pixel size is 0$\farcs$17 $\times$
0$\farcs$17\. The red ellipses in the bottom left of plots represent the
synthesized beam.

Figure 25: HOPS-13 outflow mass, momentum, energy maps, and the corresponding
instantaneous rate maps. Note that the pixel size is 0$\farcs$17 $\times$
0$\farcs$17\. The red ellipses in the bottom left of plots represent the
synthesized beam.

Figure 26: HOPS-127 outflow mass, momentum, energy maps, and the corresponding
instantaneous rate maps. Note that the pixel size is 0$\farcs$17 $\times$
0$\farcs$17\. The red ellipses in the bottom left of plots represent the
synthesized beam.

Figure 27: HOPS-129 outflow mass, momentum, energy maps, and the corresponding
instantaneous rate maps. Note that the pixel size is 0$\farcs$17 $\times$
0$\farcs$17\. The red ellipses in the bottom left of plots represent the
synthesized beam. There is no detection in the energy ejection rate map due to
the high noise level.

Figure 28: HOPS-130 outflow mass, momentum, energy maps, and the corresponding
instantaneous rate maps. Note that the pixel size is 0$\farcs$17 $\times$
0$\farcs$17\. The red ellipses in the bottom left of plots represent the
synthesized beam.

Figure 29: HOPS-134 outflow mass, momentum, energy maps, and the corresponding
instantaneous rate maps. Note that the pixel size is 0$\farcs$17 $\times$
0$\farcs$17\. The red ellipses in the bottom left of plots represent the
synthesized beam.

Figure 30: HOPS-135 outflow mass, momentum, energy maps, and the corresponding
instantaneous rate maps. Note that the pixel size is 0$\farcs$17 $\times$
0$\farcs$17\. The red ellipses in the bottom left of plots represent the
synthesized beam.

Figure 31: HOPS-150 outflow mass, momentum, energy maps, and the corresponding
instantaneous rate maps. Note that the pixel size is 0$\farcs$17 $\times$
0$\farcs$17\. The red ellipses in the bottom left of plots represent the
synthesized beam. 2 jets with molecular bullets appear clearly in the energy
ejection rate maps. The southern jet coincides spatially with HOPS-150 A, but
the northern jet is originated from a nearby source outside the field of view.

Figure 32: HOPS-157 outflow mass, momentum, energy maps, and the corresponding
instantaneous rate maps. Note that the pixel size is 0$\farcs$17 $\times$
0$\farcs$17\. The red ellipses in the bottom left of plots represent the
synthesized beam.

Figure 33: HOPS-164 outflow mass, momentum, energy maps, and the corresponding
instantaneous rate maps. Note that the pixel size is 0$\farcs$17 $\times$
0$\farcs$17\. The red ellipses in the bottom left of plots represent the
synthesized beam.

Figure 34: HOPS-164 outflow mass, momentum, energy maps, and the corresponding
instantaneous rate maps. Note for this figure set, we exclude the high-
velocity jet components. The pixel size is 0$\farcs$17 $\times$ 0$\farcs$17\.
The red ellipses in the bottom left of plots represent the synthesized beam.

Figure 35: HOPS-166 outflow mass, momentum, energy maps, and the corresponding
instantaneous rate maps. Note that the pixel size is 0$\farcs$17 $\times$
0$\farcs$17\. The red ellipses in the bottom left of plots represent the
synthesized beam.

Figure 36: HOPS-169 outflow mass, momentum, energy maps, and the corresponding
instantaneous rate maps. Note that the pixel size is 0$\farcs$17 $\times$
0$\farcs$17\. The red ellipses in the bottom left of plots represent the
synthesized beam.

Figure 37: HOPS-177 outflow mass, momentum, energy maps, and the corresponding
instantaneous rate maps. Note that the pixel size is 0$\farcs$17 $\times$
0$\farcs$17\. The red ellipses in the bottom left of plots represent the
synthesized beam. There is no detection in the energy ejection rate map due to
the high noise level.

Figure 38: HOPS-185 outflow mass, momentum, energy maps, and the corresponding
instantaneous rate maps. Note that the pixel size is 0$\farcs$17 $\times$
0$\farcs$17\. The red ellipses in the bottom left of plots represent the
synthesized beam.

Figure 39: HOPS-191 outflow mass, momentum, energy maps, and the corresponding
instantaneous rate maps. Note that the pixel size is 0$\farcs$17 $\times$
0$\farcs$17\. The red ellipses in the bottom left of plots represent the
synthesized beam. There is no detection in the energy ejection rate map due to
the high noise level.

Figure 40: HOPS-194 outflow mass, momentum, energy maps, and the corresponding
instantaneous rate maps. Note that the pixel size is 0$\farcs$17 $\times$
0$\farcs$17\. The red ellipses in the bottom left of plots represent the
synthesized beam. No clear detection is seen in the energy map, and the energy
and momentum ejection rate maps.

Figure 41: HOPS-198 outflow mass, momentum, energy maps, and the corresponding
instantaneous rate maps. Note that the pixel size is 0$\farcs$17 $\times$
0$\farcs$17\. The red ellipses in the bottom left of plots represent the
synthesized beam.

Figure 42: HOPS-200 outflow mass, momentum, energy maps, and the corresponding
instantaneous rate maps. Note that the pixel size is 0$\farcs$17 $\times$
0$\farcs$17\. The red ellipses in the bottom left of plots represent the
synthesized beam.

Figure 43: HOPS-408 outflow mass, momentum, energy maps, and the corresponding
instantaneous rate maps. Note that the pixel size is 0$\farcs$17 $\times$
0$\farcs$17\. The red ellipses in the bottom left of plots represent the
synthesized beam.

##  Appendix G Outflow Opening Angle, Momentum opening angle, and Energy
opening angle

In this section, we presents all the measurements for the traditional outflow
cavity opening angle, momentum opening angle and the energy opening angles.

Table 18: Summary of outflow opening angles without inclination correction Source | Traditional | Momentum | Energy
---|---|---|---
| opening angleaaFor each source we give two estimates. The first value is the estimate for the blue-shifted lobe and the second value is for the red-shifted lobe. NA indicates the Gaussian fit used to derive the opening angle was not good, it did not converge or there is simply no outflow lobe for that source. The opening angle is defined as the full-width quarter maximum (FWQM) of the fitted Gaussian. | opening angleaaFor each source we give two estimates. The first value is the estimate for the blue-shifted lobe and the second value is for the red-shifted lobe. NA indicates the Gaussian fit used to derive the opening angle was not good, it did not converge or there is simply no outflow lobe for that source. The opening angle is defined as the full-width quarter maximum (FWQM) of the fitted Gaussian. | opening angleaaFor each source we give two estimates. The first value is the estimate for the blue-shifted lobe and the second value is for the red-shifted lobe. NA indicates the Gaussian fit used to derive the opening angle was not good, it did not converge or there is simply no outflow lobe for that source. The opening angle is defined as the full-width quarter maximum (FWQM) of the fitted Gaussian.
| (∘) | (∘) | (∘)
HOPS-10 | 38.0 $\pm$ 3.4 / 62.6 $\pm$ 3.6 | 77.1 $\pm$ 12.7 / 48.6 $\pm$ 2.8 | 23.3 $\pm$ 2.6 / 64.4 $\pm$ 4.7
HOPS-11 | 117.2 $\pm$ 23.7 / 118.6 $\pm$ 5.0 | 42.0 $\pm$ 3.8 / 40.6 $\pm$ 4.7 | 30.1 $\pm$ 2.8 / 84.6 $\pm$ 5.7
HOPS-13 | 50.0 $\pm$ 2.4 / 57.6 $\pm$ 5.6 | NA / NA | NA / NA
HOPS-127 | 77.9 $\pm$ 5.6 / 62.9 $\pm$ 4.3 | NA / 112.7 $\pm$ 9.1 | NA / 130.7 $\pm$ 32.5
HOPS-129 | 75.6 $\pm$ 6.4 / NA | 45.2 $\pm$ 8.0 / 82.9 $\pm$ 6.5 | 38.6 $\pm$ 5.6 / 56.7 $\pm$ 7.5
HOPS-130 | 68.3 $\pm$ 8.1 / NA | 91.9 $\pm$ 13.1 / NA | 143.6 $\pm$ 14.6 / NA
HOPS-134 | 131.5 $\pm$ 17.1 / NA | NA / NA | NA / NA
HOPS-135 | NA / 71.3 $\pm$ 5.3 | NA / 64.6 $\pm$ 4.2 | 40.1 $\pm$ 2.5 / 62.6 $\pm$ 4.3
HOPS-150bbHOPS-150 is a binary system and it is contaminated by two collimated molecular outflows from two nearby sources. The Gaussian fits performed poorly for HOPS-150.  | NA / NA | 106.1 $\pm$ 11.7 / NA | NA / NA
HOPS-157 | 110.2 $\pm$ 11.0 / NA | NA / NA | NA / NA
HOPS-164 | 45.0 $\pm$ 3.0 / 29.3 $\pm$ 0.5 | 56.4 $\pm$ 3.3 / 32.4 $\pm$ 1.8 | 45.8 $\pm$ 1.8 / 26.0 $\pm$ 0.7
HOPS-166 | NA / NA | NA / NA | NA / 155.5 $\pm$ 82.4
HOPS-169 | 67.6 $\pm$ 5.9 / 45.6 $\pm$ 1.6 | 34.0 $\pm$ 2.2 / 35.5 $\pm$ 3.3 | 36.3 $\pm$ 2.7 / 23.2 $\pm$ 1.2
HOPS-177 | 134.9 $\pm$ 19.0 / 91.6 $\pm$ 12.0 | NA / NA | 112.0 $\pm$ 5.2 / NA
HOPS-185 | 112.2 $\pm$ 13.9 / 92.2 $\pm$ 11.3 | NA / 97.5 $\pm$ 8.0 | NA / 98.0 $\pm$ 7.2
HOPS-191 | 113.2 $\pm$ 8.7 / 77.6 $\pm$ 8.5 | 83.8 $\pm$ 4.7 / 71.6 $\pm$ 5.7 | NA / NA
HOPS-194 | NA / 110.0 $\pm$ 11.1 | NA / NA | NA / NA
HOPS-198 | 69.9 $\pm$ 4.5 / NA | 60.0 $\pm$ 3.7 / 66.3 $\pm$ 3.7 | 34.4 $\pm$ 4.1 / NA
HOPS-200 | 137.2 $\pm$ 20.7 / NA | NA / NA | NA / NA
HOPS-355 | 24.3 $\pm$ 1.3 / 34.3 $\pm$ 1.5 | 31.2 $\pm$ 1.6 / 27.1 $\pm$ 1.8 | 40.8 $\pm$ 5.4 / 26.3 $\pm$ 3.3
HOPS-408 | NA / NA | 37.2 $\pm$ 2.4 / 24.5 $\pm$ 1.3 | 26.4 $\pm$ 4.5 / 24.0 $\pm$ 8.9
Table 19: Summary of the outflow opening angles with inclination correction Source | Traditional | Momentum | Energy
---|---|---|---
| opening angleaaFor each source we give two estimates. The first value is the estimate for the blue-shifted lobe and the second value is for the red-shifted lobe. NA indicates the Gaussian fit used to derive the opening angle was not good, it did not converge or there is simply no outflow lobe for that source. The opening angle is defined as the full-width quarter maximum (FWQM) of the fitted Gaussian. The errors are from the uncertainty of the Gaussian fit. | opening angleaaFor each source we give two estimates. The first value is the estimate for the blue-shifted lobe and the second value is for the red-shifted lobe. NA indicates the Gaussian fit used to derive the opening angle was not good, it did not converge or there is simply no outflow lobe for that source. The opening angle is defined as the full-width quarter maximum (FWQM) of the fitted Gaussian. The errors are from the uncertainty of the Gaussian fit. | opening angleaaFor each source we give two estimates. The first value is the estimate for the blue-shifted lobe and the second value is for the red-shifted lobe. NA indicates the Gaussian fit used to derive the opening angle was not good, it did not converge or there is simply no outflow lobe for that source. The opening angle is defined as the full-width quarter maximum (FWQM) of the fitted Gaussian. The errors are from the uncertainty of the Gaussian fit.
| (∘) | (∘) | (∘)
HOPS-10 | 33.2 $\pm$ 2.9 / 55.5 $\pm$ 3.1 | 69.2 $\pm$ 11.0 / 42.7 $\pm$ 2.4 | 20.2 $\pm$ 2.3 / 57.2 $\pm$ 4.1
HOPS-11 | 64.4 $\pm$ 9.2 / 65.9 $\pm$ 1.9 | 16.8 $\pm$ 1.5 / 16.2 $\pm$ 1.8 | 11.8 $\pm$ 1.1 / 38.6 $\pm$ 2.2
HOPS-13 | 44.7 $\pm$ 2.1 / 51.7 $\pm$ 4.9 | NA / NA | NA / NA
HOPS-127 | 65.8 $\pm$ 4.5 / 52.1 $\pm$ 3.4 | NA / 100.5 $\pm$ 7.3 | NA / 120.3 $\pm$ 26.3
HOPS-129 | 63.6 $\pm$ 5.1 / NA | 36.8 $\pm$ 6.4 / 70.5 $\pm$ 5.2 | 31.3 $\pm$ 4.5 / 46.7 $\pm$ 6.0
HOPS-130 | 65.3 $\pm$ 7.7 / NA | 88.6 $\pm$ 12.4 / NA | 141.6 $\pm$ 13.8 / NA
HOPS-134 | 101.6 $\pm$ 9.5 / NA | NA / NA | NA / NA
HOPS-135 | NA / 62.0 $\pm$ 4.4 | NA / 55.8 $\pm$ 3.5 | 34.0 $\pm$ 2.1 / 54.0 $\pm$ 3.6
HOPS-150bbHOPS-150 is a binary system and it is contaminated by two collimated molecular outflows from two nearby sources. The Gaussian fits performed poorly for HOPS-150. ccfootnotetext: HOPS-194 opening angle is measured directly from the C18O outflow cavity as shown in Figure 2. The uncertainty is adopted to be 10% of the measurement. | NA / NA | 79.8 $\pm$ 7.4 / NA | NA / NA
HOPS-157 | 70.9 $\pm$ 5.5 / NA | NA / NA | NA / NA
HOPS-164 | 35.4 $\pm$ 2.3 / 22.8 $\pm$ 0.4 | 44.9 $\pm$ 2.5 / 25.3 $\pm$ 1.4 | 36.1 $\pm$ 1.4 / 20.2 $\pm$ 0.5
HOPS-166 | NA / NA | NA / NA | NA / 116.1 $\pm$ 33.9
HOPS-169 | 46.7 $\pm$ 3.8 / 30.3 $\pm$ 1.0 | 22.3 $\pm$ 1.4 / 23.3 $\pm$ 2.1 | 23.9 $\pm$ 1.7 / 15.1 $\pm$ 0.8
HOPS-177 | 127.5 $\pm$ 16.0 / 81.7 $\pm$ 10.1 | NA / NA | 102.6 $\pm$ 4.4 / NA
HOPS-185 | 108.2 $\pm$ 12.9 / 88.0 $\pm$ 10.5 | NA / 93.3 $\pm$ 7.4 | NA / 93.8 $\pm$ 6.7
HOPS-191 | 108.5 $\pm$ 8.0 / 72.8 $\pm$ 7.8 | 78.9 $\pm$ 4.3 / 66.9 $\pm$ 5.2 | NA / NA
HOPS-194 | NA / 65.1 $\pm$ 5.0 | NA / NA | NA / NA
HOPS-198 | 69.1 $\pm$ 4.4 / NA | 59.3 $\pm$ 3.6 / 65.5 $\pm$ 3.6 | 33.9 $\pm$ 4.0 / NA
HOPS-200 | 134.6 $\pm$ 19.4 / NA | NA / NA | NA / NA
HOPS-355 | 11.9 $\pm$ 0.6 / 17.0 $\pm$ 0.7 | 15.4 $\pm$ 0.8 / 13.3 $\pm$ 0.9 | 20.4 $\pm$ 2.6 / 12.9 $\pm$ 1.6
HOPS-408 | NA / NA | 32.2 $\pm$ 2.1 / 21.1 $\pm$ 1.1 | 22.7 $\pm$ 3.9 / 20.7 $\pm$ 7.6