Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 149 references

Developing a self-consistent AGB wind model: II. Non-classical, non-equilibrium polymer nucleation in a chemical mixture

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read By dropping equilibrium, monomer-only growth, and bulk-material energies from dust nucleation, this paper finds that monomer restriction underpredicts large clusters and delays formation, and that Al2O3 — not TiO2 — seeds dust first…

desk verdict A genuine methods advance in dust nucleation modeling: the monomer-vs-polymer comparison is solid and reproducible, but the favored-precursor ranking depends on assumptions the authors themselves flag as unverified. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.09633 v1 pith:KGF6RWUO submitted 2019-08-26 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.IMcond-mat.stat-mech

Jels Boulangier , David Gobrecht , Leen Decin , Alex de Koter , Jeremy Yates This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.IMcond-mat.stat-mech
keywords AGBstarsdustnucleationpolymernon-equilibriumchemistryaluminiumoxideclusterstitaniumdioxidestellarwinddrivingdensityfunctionaltheory
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Asymptotic giant branch (AGB) stars return heavy elements to the interstellar medium, and their mass loss is believed to be launched by radiation pressure on dust that forms in the wind. This paper argues that the three shortcuts in current nucleation models — chemical equilibrium, growth by adding one monomer at a time, and using bulk-solid energies for clusters of a few molecules — each distort the predicted dust. Replacing them with time-dependent kinetics in which any two clusters of the same molecule can merge, driven by quantum-mechanically computed Gibbs free energies, the paper finds that monomer-restricted growth underpredicts large clusters at low temperatures and overpredicts their formation times. When monomers are assumed present, (Al2O3)8 forms fastest and at the highest temperatures (1800-2400 K), making Al2O3 the favored first condensate; starting from a purely atomic gas, only (TiO2)10 forms, a contradiction the authors attribute to missing Al-oxide reaction data rather than to Al2O3 being a poor nucleator. If the results are right, current monomer-only equilibrium wind models underestimate dust abundance and can delay or even suppress the wind-driving that the paper is ultimately trying to explain.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is a homomolecular polymer nucleation network. Each formula unit (TiO2, MgO, SiO, Al2O3) defines a ladder of cluster species, and any two clusters $C_N$ and $C_M$ can merge into $C_{N+M}$ with a growth rate from hard-sphere collision theory, $k^+_{N,M} = \pi(r_N + r_M)^2 \sqrt{8 k_B T / \pi \mu_{N,M}}$, while the reverse dissociation rate is set by detailed balance using the cluster's Gibbs free energy at standard pressure, $k^-_{N,M} = k^+_{N,M} \frac{P^\circ}{k_B T} \exp\left(\frac{G^\circ_{N+M} - G^\circ_M - G^\circ_N}{k_B T}\right)$. The Gibbs free energies come from B3LYP density functional theory with vibrational analysis instead of bulk-extrapolated surface energies, which is what produces non-monotonic stability patterns such as (MgO)9 being more abundant than (MgO)10. Two network setups bracket the chemistry: closed networks that assume every metal atom starts in the monomer, isolating the intrinsic nucleation efficiency of each candidate, and a comprehensive network grafted onto a reduced AGB wind chemical network — extended with Ti, Al, and Mg reactions — that starts from atoms and decides whether the monomers can form at all.

What would settle it

Measure or recompute the rate coefficients for the two reactions that are the only available paths to the Al2O3 monomer, AlO + AlO + M -> Al2O2 + M and Al2O2 + O + M -> Al2O3 + M, at 1500-2500 K. If experiment or higher-level theory places these rates orders of magnitude above the combustion-derived values used here, the comprehensive model's failure to form Al2O3 is the data gap the paper claims; if the rates are right, the claim that Al2O3 is the first condensate in AGB winds fails, because its monomer cannot arise from an atomic gas and, by the model's own logic, only TiO2 clusters would seed dust.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is a set of consequences of removing the equilibrium and monomer restrictions from AGB dust nucleation. Monomer-restricted growth depletes the monomer pool as soon as small clusters form, quenching further growth at low temperatures, whereas polymer nucleation lets clusters keep merging, so the monomer description underpredicts large clusters and overpredicts formation times; the difference is large for (MgO)9 (roughly 180 days versus a few hours to converge) and (TiO2)10 (60 days versus under 20 days). In the closed models, where the monomer is assumed present, (Al2O3)8 forms in about 5-10 hours at 1800-2400 K (more than 90 per cent of available Al at the most favorable conditions), ahead of (MgO)9 at 1500-1700 K and (TiO2)10 at 1000-1200 K, while SiO clusters do not form at all in the relevant range. In the comprehensive network starting from atoms, all Mg stays atomic and Al2O3 cannot assemble its monomer, so only (TiO2)10 forms; most Al remains atomic with at most 1 per cent in AlO, AlH, Al(OH)2, and Al(OH)3. The authors nonetheless conclude that Al2O3 is the prime candidate, citing presolar corundum grains, dust observed near the star at 1500-2000 K where TiO2 clusters cannot yet exist, and their judgment that the available Al-oxide rate coefficients, taken from combustion chemistry and dominated by high barriers, are the missing link.

Load-bearing premise

Every cluster in the model grows by combining whole copies of one fixed molecule (Al2O3, TiO2, MgO, or SiO) through barrierless hard-sphere collisions, and the paper itself concedes that nucleation by monomer-multiples of a fixed stoichiometry "is not established either" (Sec. 6.1.1); if real dust forms through mixed-species or non-stoichiometric steps, or through reactions with activation barriers, the identity of the first condensate and the temperature at which it appears could both change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Current AGB wind models that keep monomer-only equilibrium nucleation will underestimate the abundance of large clusters and overestimate their formation times, because monomer depletion quenches growth once small clusters form; allowing polymer collisions raises dust yields and shortens formation times.
  • If Al2O3 monomers are present, dust seeds appear within hours at 1800-2400 K, which is high enough to explain dust observed at 1.5-2 stellar radii in oxygen-rich winds, where temperatures exceed the 1000-1200 K at which TiO2 clusters can form.
  • From an initially atomic mixture, TiO2 is the only viable first condensate among the four candidates, since magnesium never leaves the atomic phase and Al2O3's monomer cannot be assembled with currently available rate data.
  • Equilibrium abundance ratios are not reached within one year across much of the temperature range, so steady-state nucleation rates are generally invalid and time-dependent descriptions are necessary.
  • Rough extrapolation of the largest clusters to seed-sized particles yields normalized seed abundances of order $3\times10^{-11}$ to $8\times10^{-11}$ per hydrogen, well above the $10^{-16}$ threshold that dynamical models say is needed to drive an AGB wind.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A direct test of the paper's own logic: if new Al-oxide rate data lets the comprehensive network form (Al2O3)8 at 1800-2400 K, the Al2O3-first ranking is confirmed; if it still fails, the presolar and hot-dust evidence would instead point toward the heteromolecular pathways (such as MgAl2O4 spinel) that this paper deliberately sets aside.
  • Because the paper shows the hard-sphere collision rates exceed RRKM rates for Al2O3 dimerization by roughly an order of magnitude, the reported formation temperatures and abundances are probably optimistic upper bounds; the qualitative ordering — Al2O3 hottest, then MgO, then TiO2 — is more robust than the exact thresholds.
  • The monomer-depletion bottleneck is generic: any environment where condensation outruns monomer resupply — brown dwarf atmospheres, supernova ejecta, combustion — will misbehave under monomer-only nucleation, so the polymer treatment transfers well beyond AGB winds.
  • Coupling this nucleation network into a hydrodynamical wind trajectory is the natural next step; the paper's grid is in temperature and density, and its own extrapolation suggests seed abundances would be ample, but only a full dynamical coupling can test whether the Al2O3-versus-TiO2 outcome survives the true cooling and shock history of the outflow.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a time-dependent, non-equilibrium chemical-kinetics nucleation model for AGB winds, applied to TiO2, MgO, SiO, and Al2O3. Growth rate coefficients are hard-sphere collision rates (Eq. 11) and destruction rates are obtained from detailed balance using DFT-based Gibbs free energies (Eq. 16). Two classes of models are studied: closed nucleation networks, in which the monomer is assumed present and the system contains only one nucleating species, and a comprehensive network starting from an atomic composition and including a large gas-phase reaction network. The main findings are that monomer-restricted growth underpredicts large clusters at low temperatures and overpredicts formation times; that in the closed models (Al2O3)8 forms fastest and at the highest temperatures (1800-2400 K), making Al2O3 the favoured first condensate; and that in the comprehensive atomic network only TiO2 clusters form, with Al and Mg remaining essentially atomic. The authors conclude that the absence of Al2O3 in the comprehensive model is likely due to incomplete Al reaction data and explicitly argue, based on presolar grains and observations, that Al2O3 remains the prime candidate.

Significance. The central methodological contribution is a transparent, parameter-free nucleation framework that replaces classical steady-state nucleation with polymer growth and quantum-chemical cluster energetics. The comparison of monomer vs polymer growth yields a clear, qualitative result: monomer-only models underestimate large-cluster abundances at low temperatures and overestimate formation times, which is directly relevant to existing AGB wind models. The model makes falsifiable predictions: in an initially atomic mixture, only TiO2 clusters form among the four candidates, while Al2O3 nucleates efficiently if its monomer is assumed present. The paper is unusually open about its limitations, and the release of homogenized thermochemical data and code, including Gibbs free energies for the clusters, is a significant strength that will allow independent checks. The two legs of the central claim rest on assumptions that are acknowledged but not quantitatively tested, which is why the work needs revision rather than acceptance as is.

major comments (3)
  1. [2.2, 3.1, 6.1.1] The assumption that nucleation is homomolecular and proceeds by integer multiples of a fixed stoichiometric monomer is load-bearing for both parts of the central claim: the closed-model preference for Al2O3 and the comprehensive-model conclusion that only TiO2 clusters form. The paper itself states in Sec. 6.1.1 that 'the fact that nucleation occurs via the addition of monomer-multiples with a fixed stoichiometry is not established either.' If, for example, AlxOy species with x:y not equal to 2:3 (such as AlO or Al2O2) can attach to growing clusters, or if heteromolecular clusters like MgAl2O4 form efficiently, the identity and temperature threshold of the first dust precursor could change. The authors should add a sensitivity test that relaxes the fixed-stoichiometry restriction for at least one candidate (e.g., allowing AlO or Al2O2 addition to Al2O3 clusters) and report how the formation threshold and cluster distribution shift, or provide a quantitative argument for why such pathways cannot compete.
  2. [6.1.1, Fig. 6] The growth rates used throughout the paper are geometric hard-sphere collision rates (Eq. 11). Figure 6 shows that for Al2O3 dimerization this approximation overestimates the RRKM/Lindemann rate by roughly an order of magnitude. Because the closed-model conclusion that (Al2O3)8 forms rapidly at 1800-2400 K depends directly on the magnitude of k+ in Eq. (11), an order-of-magnitude overestimate in k+ could materially change the formation-temperature boundary and the convergence times reported in Sec. 4.1.4. The paper acknowledges this qualitatively but does not propagate the uncertainty. I request a simple sensitivity run: repeat the closed polymer-nucleation model for Al2O3 with k+ reduced by a factor of 10 (or with the RRKM rate of Sharipov & Loukhovitski 2018) and report the resulting (Al2O3)8 abundance map and time evolution. This would establish whether the qualitative ranking of candidates is robust.
  3. [4.2.4, 5.2, 6.1.2] The abstract and Sec. 5.2 present the comprehensive-model result as 'only TiO2-clusters form' while simultaneously concluding that Al2O3 is the prime candidate. The manuscript is transparent that the Al2O3 preference is based on external evidence rather than the model, but the phrasing in the abstract and summary can be read as a model prediction. Since the authors themselves attribute the non-formation of Al2O3 to incomplete Al reaction data, the paper should state more crisply that the comprehensive-model prediction is conditional on the adopted network, that the absence of Al2O3 is not a falsification of Al2O3 nucleation, and that the Al2O3-favouring conclusion is an inference from the closed models plus observational evidence. This distinction is essential for readers assessing the strength of the paper's main claim.
minor comments (4)
  1. [4.1.5, Eqs. (13)-(16)] The comparison with equilibrium abundance ratios in Sec. 4.1.5 uses Eq. (15), which is derived from the same Gibbs free energies that set the destruction rate coefficients in Eq. (16). The comparison therefore tests kinetic convergence toward the equilibrium implied by the model's own thermodynamics, not the validity of the thermodynamics. This should be stated explicitly in the text to avoid the impression of an independent equilibrium check.
  2. [Appendix D, Table D2] Table D2 is difficult to parse because the legend uses 'CCCBDB' both as a source name and as an entry, and several entries contain '?' without a reference (e.g., SO, NO2). The authors should either provide the missing references or mark these entries as unverified. This matters because reversed rate coefficients for the comprehensive network depend on these thermochemical data.
  3. [6.2.2] In the extrapolation from (Al2O3)8 to (Al2O3)1000, the factor relating cluster sizes is 8/1000 = 125, not 100 as stated in the text. The difference is small compared to the other uncertainties, but the arithmetic should be corrected or stated as 'roughly 100' with the exact factor.
  4. [Abstract, Sec. 1] The opening statement that 'various nucleation theories exist, yet all assume chemical equilibrium, growth restricted by monomers' is too strong, since the paper itself cites works (e.g., Sarangi & Cherchneff 2015; Gobrecht et al. 2016) that abandon equilibrium. Please qualify this statement so it refers to the most commonly used nucleation prescriptions in AGB wind models.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the kinetic predictions follow from independent DFT thermochemistry and geometric cross sections, with no parameter fitted to the cluster abundances.

full rationale

The paper's central derivations are self-contained. Growth rate coefficients are computed from geometric cross sections and Maxwell-Boltzmann collision rates (Eqs. 10�11), and destruction coefficients are obtained from detailed balance using DFT-based Gibbs free energies of isolated clusters (Eqs. 13�16). These free energies are calculated or gathered from literature quantum-chemical data and are not adjusted to reproduce the cluster abundances that the paper reports. The closed-model result that Al2O3 nucleates fastest at 1800�2400 K is explicitly conditional on the monomer being present (Sec. 4.1.4 and 5.1); the comprehensive-model result that only TiO2 clusters form is traced by the authors to incomplete Al-reaction data (Secs. 4.2.4, 5.2, 6.1.2), not to a fitted parameter. The comparison of monomer versus polymer nucleation shows that the monomer description depletes monomers and quenches growth, which the paper itself labels as 'by design' (Sec. 4.1.1); this is a model property rather than a circular prediction. The equilibrium comparison in Sec. 4.1.5 uses the same Gibbs free energies, but it is presented as a consistency check of whether the kinetic system has reached equilibrium, not as an independent validation. The acknowledged limitations in Sec. 6.1.1, including the unverified assumption of homomolecular fixed-stoichiometry growth, are correctness risks explicitly flagged by the authors and do not make the derivation circular. The companion-paper citation (Boulangier et al. 2019) supplies the underlying gas-phase network as an input but is not used as a load-bearing justification of the nucleation conclusions.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model introduces no new physical entities; its predictions rest on literature DFT structures, standard kinetic theory, and detailed balance. The free parameters are computational truncations and scenario initial conditions, not fitted constants. The most fragile premises are the homomolecular fixed-stoichiometry growth rule and the completeness of the Al reaction network.

free parameters (3)
  • Maximum cluster size = N=10 for TiO2, MgO, SiO; N=8 for Al2O3
    Chosen to keep DFT calculations feasible (Sec. 3.2). The paper notes in Sec. 6.1.3 that the artificial maximum cluster size means the largest clusters would continue growing to real dust grains, so their abundances are not directly dust-grain abundances.
  • Initial monomer abundance fraction in closed models = 1.0
    Closed nucleation models assume all available metal is locked into the monomer (Sec. 3.3). The paper warns in Sec. 5 that these results are 'not necessarily physical' and only probe nucleation efficiency.
  • Initial Al2O3 abundance in the 1% scenario = 0.01 of available Al
    Chosen in Sec. 6.2.3 to match the observed upper limit that about 1% of Al is in molecules; a scenario, not a fit to the nucleation outcome.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math Detailed balance and microscopic reversibility determine destruction rate coefficients from equilibrium constants (Eq. 13-16).
    Invoked in Sec. 2.2 to derive k-_N,M; assumes each reaction is equilibrated in isolation.
  • standard math The cluster distribution is dilute, so the ideal-solution Gibbs free energy expression applies (App. A).
    Used to derive the equilibrium cluster ratio neq_N neq_M / neq_N+M in Eq. 14.
  • domain assumption Clusters are spheres with radius r_N = N^{1/3} r1, i.e., volume scales linearly with cluster size (Eq. 11).
    Used for all growth cross sections; the paper acknowledges that effective radii from real geometries would be more accurate (Sec. 6.1.1).
  • domain assumption Nucleation is homogeneous and homomolecular, with growth by fixed-stoichiometry monomer multiples (Sec. 2.2, Sec. 3.1).
    Excludes heteromolecular nucleation (e.g., MgAl2O4) and non-stoichiometric cluster addition; the paper states this is not established (Sec. 6.1.1).
  • domain assumption Cluster destruction is spontaneous unimolecular breakup, not collisionally induced, and clusters relax to their lowest energy configuration between events (Sec. 2.2).
    Used to set destruction rates independent of the embedding gas; the paper notes collisional dissociation would improve accuracy (Sec. 6.1.1).
  • domain assumption B3LYP/6-311+G* density functional theory provides adequate Gibbs free energies for all clusters and molecules (Sec. 3.6.2).
    All cluster energies are computed with this single functional/basis set; no uncertainty quantification is given.
  • ad hoc to paper The augmented Boulangier et al. (2019) reaction network is sufficient to model monomer formation for Ti, Mg, Si, and Al (Sec. 3.4, App. F).
    The comprehensive model's prediction that only TiO2 forms relies on this network; the paper itself argues Al reactions are incomplete (Sec. 6.1.2).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Developing a self-consistent AGB wind model: II. Non-classical, non-equilibrium polymer nucleation in a chemical mixture." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KGF6RWUO

@misc{pith2026190809633,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Developing a self-consistent AGB wind model: II. Non-classical, non-equilibrium polymer nucleation in a chemical mixture},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KGF6RWUO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.09633}
}
abstract

Unravelling the composition and characteristics of gas and dust lost by asymptotic giant branch (AGB) stars is important as these stars play a vital role in the chemical life cycle of galaxies. The general hypothesis of their mass loss mechanism is a combination of stellar pulsations and radiative pressure on dust grains. However, current models simplify dust formation, which starts as a microscopic phase transition called nucleation. Various nucleation theories exist, yet all assume chemical equilibrium, growth restricted by monomers, and commonly use macroscopic properties for a microscopic process. Such simplifications for initial dust formation can have large repercussions on the type, amount, and formation time of dust. By abandoning equilibrium assumptions, discarding growth restrictions, and using quantum mechanical properties, we have constructed and investigated an improved nucleation theory in AGB wind conditions for four dust candidates, TiO$_2$, MgO, SiO and Al$_2$O$_3$. This paper reports the viability of these candidates as first dust precursors and reveals implications of simplified nucleation theories. Monomer restricted growth underpredicts large clusters at low temperatures and overpredicts formation times. Assuming the candidates are present, Al$_2$O$_3$ is the favoured precursor due to its rapid growth at the highest considered temperatures. However, when considering an initially atomic chemical mixture, only TiO$_2$-clusters form. Still, we believe Al$_2$O$_3$ to be the prime candidate due to substantial physical evidence in presolar grains, observations of dust around AGB stars at high temperatures, and its ability to form at high temperatures and expect the missing link to be insufficient quantitative data of Al-reactions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.09633 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Simple molecules (mainly oxides) with high bond ener￾gies at 298 K (Luo 2007) and/or a high atomic abundance provide hints at which species play a dominant role in the initial dust formation in AGB winds. though there is no substantial evidence for TiO2 to be the repeating formula unit in presolar grains containing titanium oxides, it is, however, the repeating basic building block in other commonly found titanium m… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Normalised mass density (or mass fraction) w.r.t. the initially available monomers after one year of (TiO2)10, (MgO)9, and (Al2O3)8 for the closed nucleation models with left monomer and right polymer nucleation description. We refrain from showing (SiO)10 since its abundance is zero in the entire parameter space. Note that (MgO)9 is the second largest cluster, but most stable and more abundant one. Monomer nucleati… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Temporal evolution of the absolute number density of (TiO2)10, (MgO)9, and (Al2O3)8 at the benchmark total gas density ρ = 1 · 10−9 kg m−3 with left monomer and right polymer nucleation description. Be aware of the different time scales between species. Overall, convergence with monomer nucleation description takes slightly longer than using the polymer nucleation one. It can also yield vastly different final abunda… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Normalised mass density after one year (top) and tem￾poral evolution of the absolute number density at the benchmark total gas density ρ = 1 · 10−9 kg m−3 (bottom) of (TiO2)10 for the comprehensive chemical nucleation models using the polymer nu￾cleation description. T…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Normalised mass density after one year of the most abundant Al-bearing molecules for the comprehensive chemical nucleation models using the polymer nucleation description. Most Al remains atomic with up to 1 per cent in Al-bearing molecules. Al2O3, nor its precursors A…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The reaction rate coefficients of Al2O3 + Al2O3 (Al2O3)2 with the approximation of a collision of rigid spheres, used in this work, and calculated with Rice-Ramsperger-Kassel￾Marcus theory plus a Lindemann fit by Sharipov & Loukhovitski (2018). As this latter also depe…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The reaction rate coefficients of some key Al2O3 for￾mation reaction used by Gobrecht et al. (2016) are 2 to 10 orders of magnitude higher than the ones used is this work. These large differences could explain why Gobrecht et al. (2016) form Al2O3 and we do not. Moreov…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Normalised mass density after one year (top) and tem￾poral evolution of the absolute number density at the benchmark total gas density ρ = 1 · 10−9 kg m−3 (bottom) of (Al2O3)8 for the closed nucleation model with an initial Al2O3 abundance of 1 per cent of the availabl…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

149 extracted references · 65 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    L., 1997, @doi [New Astron.] 10.1016/S1384-1076(97)00010-9 , 2, 181

    Abel T., Anninos P., Zhang Y., Norman M. L., 1997, @doi [New Astron.] 10.1016/S1384-1076(97)00010-9 , 2, 181

    doi:10.1016/s1384-1076(97)00010-9 1997

  3. [3]

    F., St-Amant A., 1999, @doi [J

    Archibong E. F., St-Amant A., 1999, @doi [J. Phys. Chem. A] 10.1021/jp983695n , 103, 1109

    work page doi:10.1021/jp983695n 1999

  4. [4]

    J., Scott P., 2009, @doi [ARA & A] 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222 , 47, 481

    Asplund M., Grevesse N., Sauval A. J., Scott P., 2009, @doi [ARA & A] 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222 , 47, 481

    arXiv 2009

  5. [5]

    Atkinson R., et al., 2004, @doi [Atmos. Chem. Phys.] 10.5194/acp-4-1461-2004 , 4, 1461

    doi:10.5194/acp-4-1461-2004 2004

  6. [6]

    W., Schwenke D

    Bauschlicher C. W., Schwenke D. W., 2017, @doi [Chem. Phys. Lett.] 10.1016/J.CPLETT.2016.11.003 , 683, 62

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cplett.2016.11.003 2017

  7. [7]

    D., 1993, @doi [J

    Becke A. D., 1993, @doi [J. Chem. Phys.] 10.1063/1.464304 , 98, 1372

    doi:10.1063/1.464304 1993

  8. [8]

    Becker K., Fink E., Leiss A., Schurath U., 1978, @doi [Chem. Phys. Lett.] 10.1016/0009-2614(78)85694-2 , 54, 191

    work page doi:10.1016/0009-2614(78)85694-2 1978

Show all 149 references
  1. [9]

    D., Bremer G., Elke D., 1975, @doi [Z

    Beckmann A., B \" o klen K. D., Bremer G., Elke D., 1975, @doi [Z. Phys. A Atoms Nucl.] 10.1007/BF01408140 , 272, 143

    1975 doi

  2. [10]

    T., DesJardin P

    Bojko B. T., DesJardin P. E., Washburn E. B., 2014, @doi [Combust. Flame] 10.1016/J.COMBUSTFLAME.2014.06.011 , 161, 3211

    2014 doi

  3. [11]

    J., Stroud R

    Bose M., Floss C., Stadermann F. J., Stroud R. M., Speck A. K., 2010a, in Lunar Planet. Sci. Conf.. p. 1812, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu// \# abs/2010LPI....41.1812B

  4. [12]

    J., 2010b, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/714/2/1624 , 714, 1624

    Bose M., Floss C., Stadermann F. J., 2010b, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/714/2/1624 , 714, 1624

    doi

  5. [13]

    J., Stroud R

    Bose M., Floss C., Stadermann F. J., Stroud R. M., Speck A. K., 2012, @doi [Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta] 10.1016/j.gca.2012.06.027 , 93, 77

    2012 doi

  6. [14]

    J., Decin L., de Koter A., 2019, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/sty2560 , 482, 5052

    Boulangier J., Clementel N., van Marle A. J., Decin L., de Koter A., 2019, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/sty2560 , 482, 5052

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

    T., G \' o mez Mart \' i n J

    Bromley S. T., G \' o mez Mart \' i n J. C., Plane J. M. C., 2016, @doi [Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.] 10.1039/c6cp03629e , 18, 26913

    2016 doi

  8. [16]

    , http://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/925269-199FKl/

    Burcat A., Ruscic B., 2005, Technical report, Third millenium ideal gas and condensed phase thermochemical database for combustion (with update from active thermochemical tables). , http://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/925269-199FKl/ . Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), Argonne, ...

    2005 doi

  9. [17]

    L., McClean R

    Campbell M. L., McClean R. E., 1993, @doi [J. Phys. Chem.] 10.1021/j100132a024 , 97, 7942

    1993 doi

  10. [18]

    M., Diomede P., Longo S., 2007, @doi [A & A] 10.1051/0004-6361:20077600 , 470, 811

    Capitelli M., Coppola C. M., Diomede P., Longo S., 2007, @doi [A & A] 10.1051/0004-6361:20077600 , 470, 811

    2007 doi

  11. [19]

    Catoire L., Legendre J.-F., Giraud M., 2003, @doi [J. Propuls. power] https://doi.org/10.2514/2.6118 , 19, 196

    2003 doi

  12. [20]

    Chase M. W. J., 1998, @doi [Phys. Chem. Ref. Data] 10.18434/T42S31 , 9

    1998 doi

  13. [21]

    R., Dixon D

    Chen M., Felmy A. R., Dixon D. A., 2014, @doi [J. Phys. Chem. A] 10.1021/jp412820z , 118, 3136

    2014 doi

  14. [22]

    G., Huss G

    Choi B. G., Huss G. R., Wasserburg G. J., Gallino R., 1998, @doi [Science] 10.1126/SCIENCE.282.5392.1284 , 282, 1284

    1998

  15. [23]

    22, ASM Handb

    Clouet E., 2009, in Furrer D., Semiatin S., eds, , Vol. 22, ASM Handb. Fundam. Model. Met. Process. Vol. 22A. ASM International, Chapt. Modeling o, pp 203--217, https://arxiv.org/pdf/1001.4131v2.pdf

    2009 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Phys.] 10.1080/00268970500179651 , 103, 2483

    Cor \` a F., 2005, @doi [Mol. Phys.] 10.1080/00268970500179651 , 103, 2483

    2005 doi

  17. [25]

    97-4, pp 1 -- 266

    DeMore W., et al., 1997, JPL Publ. 97-4, pp 1 -- 266

    1997

  18. [26]

    Decin L., et al., 2017, @doi [A & A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201730782 , 608, 55

    2017 doi

  19. [27]

    Decin L., Danilovich T., Gobrecht D., Plane J. M. C., Richards A. M. S., Gottlieb C. A., Lee K. L. K., 2018, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaab6a , 855, 113

    2018 doi

  20. [28]

    A., Schneider R., Ventura P., La Franca F., Valiante R., Marini E., Di Criscienzo M., 2017, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stx387 , 467, 4431

    Dell'Agli F., Garc \' i a-Hern \' a ndez D. A., Schneider R., Ventura P., La Franca F., Valiante R., Marini E., Di Criscienzo M., 2017, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stx387 , 467, 4431

    2017 doi

  21. [29]

    Demyk K., van Heijnsbergen D., von Helden G., Meijer G., 2004, @doi [A & A] 10.1051/0004-6361:20034117 , 420, 547

    2004 doi

  22. [30]

    Depew K., Speck A., Dijkstra C., 2006, ApJ, 640, 971

    2006

  23. [31]

    K., Tanaka H., 2013, @doi [J

    Diemand J., Ang \' e lil R., Tanaka K. K., Tanaka H., 2013, @doi [J. Chem. Phys.] 10.1063/1.4818639 , 139, 074309

    2013 doi

  24. [32]

    R., Chow Y., Woodley S

    Farrow M. R., Chow Y., Woodley S. M., 2014, @doi [Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.] 10.1039/C4CP01825G , 16, 21119

    2014 doi

  25. [33]

    S., Gail H.-P., 2006, @doi [A & A] 10.1051/0004-6361:20041198 , 447, 553

    Ferrarotti A. S., Gail H.-P., 2006, @doi [A & A] 10.1051/0004-6361:20041198 , 447, 553

    2006 doi

  26. [34]

    C., 2013, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/2041-8205/773/2/L25 , 773, L25

    Forrey R. C., 2013, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/2041-8205/773/2/L25 , 773, L25

    2013 doi

  27. [35]

    J., et al., 2013, Gaussian 09, Revision E.01 , http://gaussian.com/

    Frisch M. J., et al., 2013, Gaussian 09, Revision E.01 , http://gaussian.com/

    2013

  28. [36]

    A., Zobov N

    Furtenbacher T., Szidarovszky T., Hrub \' y J., Kyuberis A. A., Zobov N. F., Polyansky O. L., Tennyson J., Cs \' a sz \' a r A. G., 2016, @doi [J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data] 10.1063/1.4967723 , 45, 043104

    2016 doi

  29. [37]

    Gail H.-P., Sedlmayr E., 1988, A & A, 206, 153

    1988

  30. [38]

    Gail H.-P., Sedlmayr E., 1999, A & A, 347, 594

    1999

  31. [39]

    R., et al., 2017, @doi [J

    Gamache R. R., et al., 2017, @doi [J. Quant. Spectrosc. Radiat. Transf.] 10.1016/J.JQSRT.2017.03.045 , 203, 70

    2017 doi

  32. [40]

    C., Abel T., 2008, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13224.x , 388, 1627

    Glover S. C., Abel T., 2008, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13224.x , 388, 1627

    2008

  33. [42]

    Gobrecht D., Cherchneff I., Sarangi A., Plane J. M. C., Bromley S. T., 2016, @doi [A & A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201425363 , 585, A6

    2016 doi

  34. [43]

    T., 2017, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6db0 , 840, 117

    Gobrecht D., Cristallo S., Piersanti L., Bromley S. T., 2017, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6db0 , 840, 117

    2017 doi

  35. [44]

    T., 2018, @doi [Chem

    Gobrecht D., Decin L., Cristallo S., Bromley S. T., 2018, @doi [Chem. Phys. Lett.] 10.1016/J.CPLETT.2018.09.018 , 711, 138

    2018 doi

  36. [45]

    Gordon I., et al., 2017, @doi [J. Quant. Spectrosc. Radiat. Transf.] 10.1016/J.JQSRT.2017.06.038 , 203, 3

    2017 doi

  37. [46]

    Goumans T. P. M., Bromley S. T., 2012, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20255.x , 420, no

    2012

  38. [47]

    R., Prieto J., Seifried D., Simoncini E., Gianturco F

    Grassi T., Bovino S., Schleicher D. R., Prieto J., Seifried D., Simoncini E., Gianturco F. A., 2014, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stu114 , 439, 2386

    2014 doi

  39. [48]

    Grassi T., Bovino S., Haugb lle T., Schleicher D. R. G., 2017, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stw2871 , 466, 1259

    2017 doi

  40. [49]

    , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004agbs.book.....H

    Habing H., Olofsson H., 2004, Asymptotic giant branch stars , @doi 10.1007/978-1-4757-3876-6. , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004agbs.book.....H

    2004 doi

  41. [50]

    Haris K., Kramida A., 2017, @doi [ApJS] 10.3847/1538-4365/aa86ab , 233, 16

    2017 doi

  42. [51]

    M., 2001, @doi [A & A] 10.1051/0004-6361:20000206 , 366, 229

    Helling C., Winters J. M., 2001, @doi [A & A] 10.1051/0004-6361:20000206 , 366, 229

    2001 doi

  43. [52]

    Helling C., Woitke P., 2006, @doi [A & A] 10.1051/0004-6361:20054598 , 455, 325

    2006 doi

  44. [53]

    Vol.3: Electronic spectra and electronic structure of polyatomic molecules

    Herzberg G., 1966, Molecular spectra and molecular structure. Vol.3: Electronic spectra and electronic structure of polyatomic molecules . Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1966msms.book.....H

    1966

  45. [54]

    Higuchi Y., Fukuda Y., Fujita Y., Yamakita N., Imajo T., 2008, @doi [Chem. Phys. Lett.] 10.1016/J.CPLETT.2007.12.067 , 452, 245

    2008 doi

  46. [55]

    H \" o fner S., Bladh S., Aringer B., Ahuja R., 2016, @doi [A & A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201628424 , 594, A108

    2016 doi

  47. [56]

    A., Yang V., Yetter R

    Huang Y., Risha G. A., Yang V., Yetter R. A., 2009, @doi [Combust. Flame] 10.1016/J.COMBUSTFLAME.2008.07.018 , 156, 5

    2009 doi

  48. [57]

    P., Herzberg G., 1979, in , Mol

    Huber K. P., Herzberg G., 1979, in , Mol. Spectra Mol. Struct.. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, pp 8--689, @doi 10.1007/978-1-4757-0961-2_2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/ \

    1979 doi

  49. [58]

    D., 2007, @doi [Comput

    Hunter J. D., 2007, @doi [Comput. Sci. Eng.] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 , 9, 90

    2007 doi

  50. [59]

    D., Huss G

    Hutcheon I. D., Huss G. R., Fahey A. J., Wasserburg G. J., 1994, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/187319 , 425, L97

    1994 doi

  51. [60]

    M., Gyngard F., 2009, Technical report, The presolar grain database , http://presolar.wustl.edu/ pgd

    Hynes K. M., Gyngard F., 2009, Technical report, The presolar grain database , http://presolar.wustl.edu/ pgd. . Laboratory for Space Sciences and Department of Physics, http://presolar.wustl.edu/ pgd

    2009

  52. [61]

    Z., 2013, Fundamentals of Atmospheric Modeling , 2nd edn

    Jacobson M. Z., 2013, Fundamentals of Atmospheric Modeling , 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, New York ( @eprint arXiv arXiv:1011.1669v3 ), @doi 10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004

    2013 arXiv

  53. [62]

    Springer, Berlin

    Janev R., Langer W., Evans K., 1987, Elementary processes in Hydrogen-Helium plasmas - Cross sections and reaction rate coefficients . Springer, Berlin

    1987

  54. [63]

    S., Chang C., Sedlmayr E., S \" u lzle D., 2000, @doi [J

    Jeong K. S., Chang C., Sedlmayr E., S \" u lzle D., 2000, @doi [J. Phys. B At. Mol. Opt. Phys.] 10.1088/0953-4075/33/17/319 , 33, 3417

    2000 doi

  55. [64]

    S., Winters J

    Jeong K. S., Winters J. M., Le Bertre T., Sedlmayr E., 2003, @doi [A & A] 10.1051/0004-6361:20030693 , 407, 191

    2003 doi

  56. [65]

    Johns J. W. C., Priddle S. H., Ramsay D. A., 1963, @doi [Discuss. Faraday Soc.] 10.1039/df9633500090 , 35, 90

    1963 doi

  57. [66]

    Johnson R. D. I., 2018, NIST Computational Chemistry Comparison and Benchmark Database NIST Standard Reference Database Number 101 , @doi 10.18434/T47C7Z , http://cccbdb.nist.gov/

    2018 doi

  58. [67]

    L., 2002, Atomic and Molecular Clusters , 1st edn

    Johnston R. L., 2002, Atomic and Molecular Clusters , 1st edn. Master's Series in Physics and Astronomy, CRC Press, @doi 10.1201/9781420055771 , https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781420055771

    2002

  59. [68]

    Kami \' n ski T., et al., 2016, @doi [A & A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201628664 , 592, A42

    2016 doi

  60. [69]

    Kami \' n ski T., et al., 2017, @doi [A & A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629838 , 599, A59

    2017 doi

  61. [70]

    I., 2010, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.16198.x , 403, 1413

    Karakas A. I., 2010, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.16198.x , 403, 1413

    2010

  62. [71]

    C., 2007, @doi [Publ

    Karakas A., Lattanzio J. C., 2007, @doi [Publ. Astron. Soc. Aust.] 10.1071/AS07021 , 24, 103

    2007 doi

  63. [72]

    Khouri T., et al., 2016, @doi [A & A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201628435 , 591, A70

    2016 doi

  64. [73]

    Khouri T., Vlemmings W. H. T., Olofsson H., Ginski C., De Beck E., Maercker M., Ramstedt S., 2018, @doi [A & A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833643 , 620, 75

    2018 doi

  65. [74]

    M., Gail H.-P., Sedlmayr E., 1997, A & A, 320, 553

    K \" o hler T. M., Gail H.-P., Sedlmayr E., 1997, A & A, 320, 553

    1997

  66. [75]

    Kramida A., Ralchenko Y., Reader J., NIST ASD Team (2018) 2018, @doi [Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol.] 10.18434/T4W30F

    2018 doi

  67. [76]

    Kurucz R., 1992, Rev. Mex. Astron. y Astrofis., 23

    1992

  68. [77]

    T., 2017, @doi [Nanoscale] 10.1039/C6NR05788H , 9, 1049

    Lamiel-Garcia O., Cuko A., Calatayud M., Illas F., Bromley S. T., 2017, @doi [Nanoscale] 10.1039/C6NR05788H , 9, 1049

    2017 doi

  69. [78]

    P., et al., 2015, @doi [Atmos

    Langowski M. P., et al., 2015, @doi [Atmos. Chem. Phys] 10.5194/acp-15-273-2015 , 15, 273

    2015 doi

  70. [79]

    T., 2015, @doi [A & A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201424621 , 575, A11

    Lee G., Helling C., Giles H., Bromley S. T., 2015, @doi [A & A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201424621 , 575, A11

    2015 doi

  71. [80]

    Lee G. K. H., Blecic J., Helling C., 2018, @doi [A & A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201731977 , 614, 126

    2018 doi

  72. [81]

    Mag.] 10.1080/14786430600767743 , 86, 5053

    Lepinoux J., 2006, @doi [Philos. Mag.] 10.1080/14786430600767743 , 86, 5053

    2006 doi

  73. [82]

    Li R., Cheng L., 2012, @doi [Comput. Theor. Chem.] 10.1016/J.COMPTC.2012.07.027 , 996, 125

    2012 doi

  74. [83]

    E., Rothman L

    Li G., Gordon I. E., Rothman L. S., Tan Y., Hu S.-M., Kassi S., Campargue A., Medvedev E. S., 2015, @doi [ApJS] 10.1088/0067-0049/216/1/15 , 216, 15

    2015 doi

  75. [84]

    CRC Press, http://staff.ustc.edu.cn/ luo971/2010-91-CRC-BDEs-Tables.pdf

    Luo Y., 2007, Comprehensive Handbook of Chemical Bond Energies . CRC Press, http://staff.ustc.edu.cn/ luo971/2010-91-CRC-BDEs-Tables.pdf

    2007

  76. [85]

    C., Zalubas R., 1979, @doi [J

    Martin W. C., Zalubas R., 1979, @doi [J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data] 10.1063/1.555608 , 8, 817

    1979 doi

  77. [86]

    C., Zalubas R., 1983, @doi [J

    Martin W. C., Zalubas R., 1983, @doi [J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data] 10.1063/1.555685 , 12, 323

    1983 doi

  78. [87]

    L., Shalashilin D., Plane J

    Mart \' i nez-N \' u \ n ez E., Whalley C. L., Shalashilin D., Plane J. M. C., 2010, @doi [J. Phys. Chem. A] 10.1021/jp102454j , 114, 6472

    2010 doi

  79. [88]

    J., Cordiner M

    McElroy D., Walsh C., Markwick A. J., Cordiner M. A., Smith K., Millar T. J., 2013, @doi [A & A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201220465 , 550, A36

    2013 doi

  80. [89]

    McKinnon R., Vogelsberger M., Torrey P., Marinacci F., Kannan R., 2018, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/sty1248 , 478, 2851

    2018 doi

  81. [90]

    J., Huss G

    McSween H. J., Huss G. R., 2010, Cosmochemistry . Cambridge University Press, @doi 10.1111/j.1945-5100.2011.01192.x , https://books.google.be/books?id=385nPZOXmYAC

    2010

  82. [91]

    E., 1993, in Gallagher J

    Moore C. E., 1993, in Gallagher J. W., ed., , CRC Ser. Eval. Data At. Phys.. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL

    1993

  83. [92]

    N., Messenger S., 2009, Identification of an Extremely 18O-rich Presolar Silicate Grain in Acfer 094 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/ \# abs/2009M & PSA..72.5376N/abstract

    Nguyen A. N., Messenger S., 2009, Identification of an Extremely 18O-rich Presolar Silicate Grain in Acfer 094 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/ \# abs/2009M & PSA..72.5376N/abstract

    2009

  84. [93]

    R., Alexander C

    Nittler L. R., Alexander C. M. O., Gao X., Walker R. M., Zinner E. K., 1994, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/370443a0 , 370, 443

    1994 doi

  85. [94]

    R., Alexander C

    Nittler L. R., Alexander C. M. O., Gao X., Walker R. M., Zinner E., 1997, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/304234 , 483, 475

    1997 doi

  86. [95]

    R., Alexander C

    Nittler L. R., Alexander C. M. O., Gallino R., Hoppe P., Nguyen A. N., Stadermann F. J., Zinner E. K., 2008, ApJ, 682, 1450

    2008

  87. [96]

    Norris B. R. M., et al., 2012, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/nature10935 , 484, 220

    2012 doi

  88. [97]

    Ohnaka K., Weigelt G., Hofmann K.-H., 2016, @doi [A & A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201628229 , 589, A91

    2016 doi

  89. [98]

    E., 2006, A guide to NumPy

    Oliphant T. E., 2006, A guide to NumPy

    2006

  90. [99]

    T., Yurchenko S

    Patrascu A. T., Yurchenko S. N., Tennyson J., 2015, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stv507 , 449, 3613

    2015 doi

  91. [100]

    Patzer A. B. C., Gauger A., Sedlmayr E., 1998, A & A, 337, 847

    1998

  92. [101]

    B., Chang C., Sedlmayr E., S \" u lzle D., 2005, @doi [Eur

    Patzer A. B., Chang C., Sedlmayr E., S \" u lzle D., 2005, @doi [Eur. Phys. J. D] 10.1140/epjd/e2005-00026-8 , 32, 329

    2005 doi

  93. [102]

    G., 1971, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/151129 , 169, 185

    Phillips J. G., 1971, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/151129 , 169, 185

    1971 doi

  94. [103]

    Plane J. M. C., 2013, @doi [Philos. Trans. A. Math. Phys. Eng. Sci.] 10.1098/rsta.2012.0335 , 371, 20120335

    2013

  95. [104]

    Plane J. M. C., Helmer M., 1995, @doi [Faraday Discuss.] 10.1039/fd9950000411 , 100, 411

    1995 doi

  96. [105]

    Plane J. M. C., Whalley C. L., 2012, @doi [J. Phys. Chem. A] 10.1021/jp211526h , 116, 6240

    2012 doi

  97. [106]

    Plane J. M. C., Feng W., Dawkins E. C. M., 2015, @doi [Chem. Rev.] 10.1021/cr500501m , 115, 4497

    2015 doi

  98. [107]

    G., 2016, @doi [A & A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201527209 , 595, A130

    Popovas A., J rgensen U. G., 2016, @doi [A & A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201527209 , 595, A130

    2016 doi

  99. [108]

    Posch T., Kerschbaum F., Mutschke H., Fabian D., Dorschner J., Hron J., 1999, A & A, 352, 609

    1999

  100. [109]

    W., Wassenhove G

    Poulaert G., Brouillard F., Claeys W., McGowan J. W., Wassenhove G. V., 1978, @doi [J. Phys. B At. Mol. Phys.] 10.1088/0022-3700/11/21/006 , 11, L671

    1978 doi

  101. [110]

    C., 1989, J

    Ritter D., Weisshaar J. C., 1989, J. Phys. Chem, 93, 1576

    1989

  102. [111]

    P., et al., 2013, @doi [A & A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 , 558, A33

    Robitaille T. P., et al., 2013, @doi [A & A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 , 558, A33

    2013 doi

  103. [112]

    J., Plane J

    Rollason R. J., Plane J. M. C., 2001, @doi [Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.] 10.1039/b105673p , 3, 4733

    2001 doi

  104. [113]

    Rothman L., et al., 2010, @doi [J. Quant. Spectrosc. Radiat. Transf.] 10.1016/J.JQSRT.2010.05.001 , 111, 2139

    2010 doi

  105. [114]

    B., 2012, @doi [J

    Saloman E. B., 2012, @doi [J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data] 10.1063/1.3656882 , 41, 013101

    2012 doi

  106. [115]

    Sarangi A., Cherchneff I., 2015, @doi [A & A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201424969 , 575, A95

    2015 doi

  107. [116]

    M., Starik A

    Savel'ev A. M., Starik A. M., 2018, @doi [Combust. Flame] 10.1016/J.COMBUSTFLAME.2018.06.017 , 196, 223

    2018 doi

  108. [117]

    S., Loukhovitski B

    Sharipov A. S., Loukhovitski B. I., 2018, Combust. Explos., 11

    2018

  109. [118]

    S., Starik A

    Sharipov A. S., Starik A. M., 2016, @doi [Chem. Phys.] 10.1016/J.CHEMPHYS.2015.11.009 , 465-466, 9

    2016 doi

  110. [119]

    Sharipov A., Titova N., Starik A., 2011, @doi [J. Phys. Chem. A] 10.1021/jp111826y , 115, 4476

    2011 doi

  111. [120]

    S., Titova N

    Sharipov A. S., Titova N. S., Starik A. M., 2012, @doi [Combust. Theory Model.] 10.1080/13647830.2012.663102 , 16, 842

    2012

  112. [121]

    Chemie Int

    Sierka M., et al., 2007, @doi [Angew. Chemie Int. Ed.] 10.1002/anie.200604823 , 46, 3372

    2007 doi

  113. [122]

    C., Levan P

    Sloan G. C., Levan P. D., Little-Marenin I. R., 1996, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/177243 , 463, 310

    1996 doi

  114. [123]

    C., Kraemer K

    Sloan G. C., Kraemer K. E., Goebel J. H., Price S. D., 2003, ApJ, 594, 483

    2003

  115. [124]

    H., 2018, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/sty2060 , 480, 5580

    Sluder A., Milosavljevi \' c M., Montgomery M. H., 2018, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/sty2060 , 480, 5580

    2018 doi

  116. [125]

    K., Barlow M

    Speck A. K., Barlow M. J., Sylvester R. J., Hofmeister A. M., 2000, @doi [A & AS] 10.1051/aas:2000274 , 146, 437

    2000 doi

  117. [126]

    M., Kuleshov P

    Starik A. M., Kuleshov P. S., Sharipov A. S., Titova N. S., Tsai C.-J., 2014, @doi [Combust. Flame] 10.1016/J.COMBUSTFLAME.2013.12.007 , 161, 1659

    2014 doi

  118. [127]

    M., Savel'ev A

    Starik A. M., Savel'ev A. M., Titova N. S., 2015, @doi [Combust. Explos. Shock Waves] 10.1134/S0010508215020057 , 51, 197

    2015 doi

  119. [128]

    M., Nittler L

    Stroud R. M., Nittler L. R., Alexander C. M. O., 2004, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1101099 , 305, 1455

    2004 doi

  120. [129]

    M., Nittler L

    Stroud R. M., Nittler L. R., Alexander C. M. O., Zinner E., 2007, Lunar Planet. Sci. Conf., p. 2203

    2007

  121. [130]

    R., Girshick S

    Suh S.-M., Zachariah M. R., Girshick S. L., 2001, @doi [J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A Vacuum, Surfaces, Film.] 10.1116/1.1355757 , 19, 940

    2001 doi

  122. [131]

    T., Catoire L., Legrand B., G \" o kalp I., Paillard C., 2003, @doi [Combust

    Swihart M. T., Catoire L., Legrand B., G \" o kalp I., Paillard C., 2003, @doi [Combust. Flame] 10.1016/S0010-2180(02)00426-1 , 132, 91

    2003 doi

  123. [132]

    Takigawa A., Tachibana S., Nagahara H., Ozawa K., 2015, @doi [ApJS] 10.1088/0067-0049/218/1/2 , 218

    2015 doi

  124. [133]

    K., Tanaka H., Yamamoto T., Kawamura K., 2011, @doi [J

    Tanaka K. K., Tanaka H., Yamamoto T., Kawamura K., 2011, @doi [J. Chem. Phys.] 10.1063/1.3593459 , 134, 204313

    2011 doi

  125. [134]

    D., 1998, @doi [J

    Teyssandier F., Allendorf M. D., 1998, @doi [J. Electrochem. Soc.] 10.1149/1.1838613 , 145, 2167

    1998 doi

  126. [135]

    A., et al., 2018, @doi [ArXiv] 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f , 156, 123

    The Astropy Collaboration T. A., et al., 2018, @doi [ArXiv] 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f , 156, 123

    2018 doi

  127. [136]

    Toxvaerd S., 2015, @doi [J. Chem. Phys.] 10.1063/1.4933065 , 143, 154705

    2015 doi

  128. [137]

    R., Grosheintz L., Rimmer P

    Tsai S.-M., Lyons J. R., Grosheintz L., Rimmer P. B., Kitzmann D., Heng K., 2017, @doi [ApJS] 10.3847/1538-4365/228/2/20 , 228, 20

    2017 doi

  129. [138]

    A., Ferland G

    Verner D. A., Ferland G. J., 1996, @doi [ApJS] 10.1086/192284 , 103, 467

    1996 doi

  130. [139]

    Vidler M., Tennyson J., 2000, @doi [J. Chem. Phys.] 10.1063/1.1321769 , 113, 9766

    2000 doi

  131. [140]

    Wakelam V., et al., 2012, @doi [ApJS] 10.1088/0067-0049/199/1/21 , 199, 21

    2012 doi

  132. [141]

    B., Trivedi J

    Washburn E. B., Trivedi J. N., Catoire L., Beckstead M. W., 2008, @doi [Combust. Sci. Technol.] 10.1080/00102200802125594 , 180, 1502

    2008 doi

  133. [142]

    L., Plane J

    Whalley C. L., Plane J. M. C., 2010, @doi [Faraday Discuss.] 10.1039/c003726e , 147, 349

    2010 doi

  134. [143]

    L., Mart \' i n J

    Whalley C. L., Mart \' i n J. C. G., Wright T. G., Plane J. M. C., 2011, @doi [Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.] 10.1039/c0cp02637a , 13, 6352

    2011 doi

  135. [144]

    Woitke P., 2006a, @doi [A & A] 10.1051/0004-6361:20054202 , 452, 537

    doi

  136. [145]

    Woitke P., 2006b, @doi [A & A] 10.1051/0004-6361:20066322 , 460, 9

    doi

  137. [146]

    N., Bernath P., M \" u ller H

    Wong A., Yurchenko S. N., Bernath P., M \" u ller H. S. P., McConkey S., Tennyson J., 2017, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stx1211 , 470, 882

    2017 doi

  138. [147]

    N., Williams H., Leyland P

    Yurchenko S. N., Williams H., Leyland P. C., Lodi L., Tennyson J., 2018, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/sty1524 , 479, 1401

    2018 doi

  139. [148]

    Zeidler S., Posch T., Mutschke H., 2013, @doi [A & A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201220459 , 553, 81

    2013 doi

  140. [149]

    Zhao-Geisler R., K \" o hler R., Kemper F., Kerschbaum F., Mayer A., Quirrenbach A., Lopez B., 2015, @doi [Publ. Astron. Soc. Pacific] 10.1086/682261 , 127, 732

    2015 doi

  141. [150]

    A., Meijer G., von Helden G., 2003, @doi [Phys

    van Heijnsbergen D., Demyk K., Duncan M. A., Meijer G., von Helden G., 2003, @doi [Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.] 10.1039/b212654k , 5, 2515

    2003 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.