1977
DOI: 10.1016/0009-2614(77)85034-3
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Chemiionization in alkali-halogen reactions: Evidence for ion formation by alkali dimers

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2

Citation Types

4
9
0

Year Published

1977
1977
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 30 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
4
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, the value is precise enough to distinguish between previously published electron affinity (EA) values for FCl. We calculate EA 0 (FCl) ≥ 249 ± 40 kJ/mol (2.6 ± 0.4 eV), shown in Table , using EA 0 (FCl) ≥ −Δ f H 0 (F - ) − Δ f H 0 (CH 3 Cl) + Δ f H 0 (CH 3 ) + Δ f H 0 (FCl) − E 0 (4) with Δ f H 0 values from Gurvich et al and our experimentally measured threshold value. Even as a lower limit, our EA measurement excludes the literature values EA(FCl) = 1.5 ± 0.3 eV from Dispert and Lacmann and Harland and Thynne . However, the EA 0 (FCl) = 2.37 ± 0.21 eV determined by Dudin et al agrees within the error bars of our measured EA 0 (FCl) ≥ 2.6 ± 0.4 eV.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 81%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…However, the value is precise enough to distinguish between previously published electron affinity (EA) values for FCl. We calculate EA 0 (FCl) ≥ 249 ± 40 kJ/mol (2.6 ± 0.4 eV), shown in Table , using EA 0 (FCl) ≥ −Δ f H 0 (F - ) − Δ f H 0 (CH 3 Cl) + Δ f H 0 (CH 3 ) + Δ f H 0 (FCl) − E 0 (4) with Δ f H 0 values from Gurvich et al and our experimentally measured threshold value. Even as a lower limit, our EA measurement excludes the literature values EA(FCl) = 1.5 ± 0.3 eV from Dispert and Lacmann and Harland and Thynne . However, the EA 0 (FCl) = 2.37 ± 0.21 eV determined by Dudin et al agrees within the error bars of our measured EA 0 (FCl) ≥ 2.6 ± 0.4 eV.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 81%
“…d Calculated using ∆fH0(CH3F) ) -225 ( 8 kJ/ mol estimated by Kolesov,61 which agrees with theoretical calculations by Berry et al62 e Calculated using EA(CH2Cl) ) 0.80 ( 0.16 eV determined by Bartmess 40 from work by Ingemann and Nibbering 41. f Calculated using EA(FCl) ) 2.37 ( 0.21 eV from Dudin et al54 g Calculated using EA(FCl) ) 1.5 ( 0.3 eV from Dispert and Lacmann55 or Harland and Thynne. 53 h Calculated using ∆fH0(CH2F -) ) -53 ( 19 kJ/mol determined by Bartmess 40 from work by Graul et al63 i Calculated using EA(CHCl) ) 1.210 ( 0.005 eV from Gilles et al64…”
supporting
confidence: 75%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The latter case would not formally produce a biexponential decay; however, the fast disappearance of 3 IC and the subsequent formation and decay of another transient species could be indistinguishable from a biexponential decay with our data. In particular, Cl 2 – forms in transient spectroscopy experiments on bulk aqueous IC/NaCl solutions on the timescale of our experiment according to the mechanism The radical, Cl 2 – , is a potential photoemitter, because it absorbs strongly at 355 nm and has a low ionization potential . The association of Cl atoms and Cl – is fast (7.8 × 10 9 M –1 s –1 ), so the appearance of Cl 2 – would coincide with the decay of 3 IC.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 77%
“…The radical, Cl 2 − , is a potential photoemitter, because it absorbs strongly at 355 nm 56 and has a low ionization potential. 57 The association of Cl atoms and Cl − is fast (7.8 × 10 9 M −1 s −1 ), 58 so the appearance of Cl 2 − would coincide with the decay of 3 IC. In this model of the data, the fast decay corresponds to the decay of 3 IC and the slow decay to the disappearance of Cl 2 − .…”
Section: ■ Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%