Comment on “Plasma chemistry of sprite streamers” by D. D. Sentman, H. C. Stenbaek‐Nielsen, M. G. McHarg, and J. S. Morrill

Abstract

[1] This work raises questions about reaction mechanisms and their ramifications in relation to the model adopted by Sentman et al. (2008). The model adopted by Sentman et al. (2008) for the description of a sprite streamer promoted the {N 2 (a ) + N 2 } quenching reaction rate constant for N 2 (B 3 P g ) formation that is not supported by the conclusions in existing experimental works. It is also shown that there are additional competing chemical reactions forming N 2 (B 3 P g ) which should be taken into account, some of which were not used in the model adopted by Sentman et al. (2008).

Electronic kinetics of molecular nitrogen and molecular oxygen in high-latitude lower thermosphere and mesosphere

“…He believed that the reaction of metastable molecules N 2 (A 3 + u ) and O 2 (a 1 g ) might play a more important role in the formation of N 2 (B 3 g ) in the afterglow stage. Moreover, Kamaratos (2009) pointed out that the role of ground state O 2 in producing N 2 (B 3 g ) in a sprite streamer should also be taken into account. Experimental measurements by Umemoto et al (2003) have identified a production of N 2 (B 3 g ) in the collisional deactivation of N 2 (a 1 − u , v=0) by different atomic and molecular gases.…”