This notebook documents the reactions (and their rates, etc) that are used to model the STEVE NO2 hypothesis.

The idea is to copy these to an Excel document for ingestion into Python

Start with Barth (1992), ignoring photoelectron and solar photon reactions
See what's different in Solomon et al (1988)
See what's different in Campbell et al (2006)
See what's different in Thirupathaiah and Singh (2014)
Check Richards and Torr (1986) and perhaps the new Richards papers for N2(A) reactions
NO2 reactions from .... places
What about impact reactions like excitation and dissociation? Green-McNeal? 
Check what's in the TIEGCM
St. Maurice and Torr (1978) equations
Grubbs et al (2018) have updated GLOW with new rates (I should probably just start here next - they have done the work for me)
St. Maurice and Laneville (1998) equations, reviewed in Pavlov (2011, 2012)
N2* stuff, Mishin et al (1989) -- need someone who speaks Russian
Zipf et al (1970)


B92 = Barth [1992]
S88 = Solomon et al [1988]
S99 = Strickland et al [1999]
C06 = Campbell et al [2006]
ST78 = St. Maurice and Torr [1978]
SL98 = St. Maurice and Laneville [1998]
D03 = Duff et al [2003]
G18 = Grubbs et al [2018]
P11 = Pavlov [2011]
P12 = Pavlov [2012]
P05 = Pintassilgo et al [2005]
TS14 = Thirupathaiah and Singh [2014]
Z09 = Zettergren [2009]
SS04 = Sheehan and St.-Maurice [2004]
H12 = Hedin et al. [2012]
MC91 = Mantas and Carlson [1991]
SN09 = Schunk and Nagy [2009]
S21 = Dave Siskind [Personal communication, 2021]


O2* = still unknown how to track this
O = O(3P)
N = N(4S)
O+ = O+(4S)


Chemical Reactions
#
Reaction
Rate [cm^-3 s^-1]
Prox Src
Ult Src
Notes
1
N2+ + O → NO+ + N(2D)
if Ti<1500:
(1-0.07*xi**0.21) * 1.4e-10*xi**-0.44
if Ti>=1500:
(1-0.07*xi**0.21) * 5.2e-11*xi**0.2
G18

B92 has 1.4e-10*(T/300)**0.44 (same form but T instead of Tf)
S88 has 1.4e-10*(Tf/300)**0.44 and lists N2D yield at 1.0
39
N2+ + O → O+ + N2
if Ti<1500:
0.07*xi**0.21 * 1.4e-10*xi**-0.44
if Ti>1500:
0.07*xi**0.21 * 5.2e-11*xi**0.2
G18

Not in S88 nor B92, unless I missed it.
Note this is a different branch than the above -- this yields more as Ti goes up.
2
N2+ + O2 → N2 + O2+
5.0e-11*xi**-0.8
G18

B92 used 5.1e-11*(T/300)**-0.8
S88 used 5.0e-11*(Tf/300)**-0.8
3
N2+ + e → N(2D) + N
if Te<1200:
0.88*2.2e-7*xe**-0.39
if Te>=1200:
0.88*1.95e-7*xe**-0.57
G18

This has a dependence on the vibrational excitation of ions (Sheehan and St-Maurice 2004). They suggest using DR rate as a free parameter to infer ionic vibrational states, which are otherwise hard to measure.
Valid up to 5000 K, vibrational states reduce by factor of 10 at high temps!
B92 uses combined 1.8e-7*(Te/300)**-0.39 and doesn't give the yields
S88 uses combined 3.5e-7*(Te/300)**-0.5 with 1.9 yield for N2D
These two are discontinuous at Te=1200, but what are you gonna do?
72
N2+ + e → N(2D) + N(2D)
if Te<1200:
0.12*2.2e-7*xe**-0.39
if Te>=1200:
0.12*1.95e-7*xe**-0.57
G18

Split the above into two reactions
4
O+ + N2 → NO+ + N
if Tf<3725:
1.71676e-12 - 7.19934e-13*xf + 1.33276e-13*xf**2 - 9.28213e-15*xf**3 + 6.39557e-16*xf**4
if Tf>=3725:
-1.52489e-11 + 7.67112e-13*xf + 1.19064e-13*xf**2 - 1.30858e-15*xf**3 + 4.67756e-18*xf**4

SL98
"For Teff values between 4000K and 6000K the rates may be up to 20% larger below the F-peak"
So I could turn this knob to create more NO in STEVE
S88 has a different rate that is only valid < 900 K
This is important for explaining SAR arc and SAID ionospheric composition
G18 uses a rate from a D-region review paper, so I ignored that
The rate of this reaction increases with N2(j) [noted in Anderson 1992 and Pavlov 2011]
Updated in SL98 which is valid up to Te=30,000 K
This is not valid below 300 K, so take care in the lower thermsphere.
This appears to be slightly discontinuous at Tf=3725, and I'm not sure if it's my typo, their typo, or what.
5
O+ + O2 → O2+ + O
if Tf<4800:
2.78932e-11 - 6.92612e-12*xf + 8.67684e-13*xf**2 - 3.47251e-14*xf**3 + 5.07097e-16*xf**4
if Tf>=4800:
-1.74046e-11 + 3.02328e-12*xf - 2.39214e-15*xf**2 - 4.02394e-17*xf**3

SL98
See notes above
6
O+ + NO → NO+ + O
if Tf<3800:
6.40408e-13 - 1.33888e-13*xf + 7.65103e-14*xf**2 - 3.11509e-15*xf**3 + 6.62374e-17*xf**4
if Tf>=3800:
-7.48312e-13 + 2.31502e-13*xf + 3.0716e-14*xf**2 - 2.65436e-16*xf**3 + 7.76665e-19*xf**4

SL98
Not in B92 nor in S88
I'm a little confused about this one.
It's not really that temperature/energy dependent, I guess
This could be an important loss process for NO at high temp, I suppose
Updated in SL98
9
O2+ + NO → NO+ + O2
4.1e-10
G18

S88 and B92 have 4.4e-10
67
O2+ + N2 → NO+ + NO
0
S21

G18 has 5e-16. 
Personal communication with Dave Siskind: "The value of 5E-16 was a mistake in reading the literature. It was an upper limit for that rate- meaning its never been detected to occur. That upper limit was published in the 1970's and Fred Rees presented it as the actual value in his 1989 text. There were papers in the 1980's which tried to observe the reaction and failed at the 2E-18 level. Probably not important for the F region since there isn't much O2+. But for the D region, it can screw you up if you include it. I've been on a crusade for the last 20 years to get people to eliminate this rate. My only published discussion is in Gumbel et al [2003], see top of page 5. And I'm sure no one has read this!"
38
N2+ + NO → NO+ + N2
7.5e-9*Tn**-0.52
G18

Not in S88 nor B92, unless I missed it
10
O2+ + N → NO+ + O(1S) 
0.15*1.65e-10
G18
Z09
B92 had 1.2e-10 combined
Not sure if this should apply to N(2D) as well
G18 is from Zettergren (2009) which is from Witasse (1991) which is from Frederick et al. [1976] -- I haven't cross-checked all of these.
Need to double check this one 
71
O2+ + N → NO+ + O(1D) 
0.85*1.65e-10
G18
Z09
Split above into two reactions. I think Witasse (1991) only has the branching to O(1S) not O(1D). 
Need to double check this one -- I am highly skeptical. For now I'll keep it, trusting Grubbs. But I don't understand where he got this from -- there may be some confusion with N+ + O2 --> NO+ + O(1D)
11
O2+ + e → O(1D) + O
if Te<1200:
0.609*1.95e-7*xe**-0.7
if Te>=1200:
0.609*1.93e-7*xe**-0.61
G18
SS04
  • This has a dependence on the vibrational excitation of ions (Sheehan and St-Maurice 2004). They suggest using DR rate as a free parameter to infer ionic vibrational states, which are otherwise hard to measure.
  • Valid up to 5000 K, vibrational states reduce by factor of 2
  • S88 has 1.9e-7*(Te/300)**-0.5 combined (Mul and McGowen, 1979)
  • B92 has 1.5e-5*(Te)**-0.7 combined (Torr et al 1976a) -- and no yields.
  • TS14 uses rate from SS04 and yields from Bates et al (1990)
  • The yield of O(1D) is controlled by the vibrational population of O2+, which can be considerable even in the nighttime ionosphere. See Semeter et al (1996) discussion. This yields an effective altitude dependence of O(1D) yield.
Split into 3 reactions
69
O2+ + e → O(1D) + O(1D)
if Te<1200:
0.389*1.95e-7*xe**-0.7
if Te>=1200:
0.389*1.93e-7*xe**-0.61
G18
SS04
Split into 3 reactions
70
O2+ + e → O(1D) + O(1S)
if Te<1200:
0.002*1.95e-7*xe**-0.7
if Te>=1200:
0.002*1.93e-7*xe**-0.61
G18
SS04
Split into 3 reactions
Solomon [1991] states that the yield (here only 0.002!) is highly dependent on the vibrational excitation of O2+. It is very low at v=0, grows rapidly, maximizing at v=2. Average yield may be 0.02-0.15.
12
N+ + O2 → O2+ + N
1.93e-10
G18

Eqs 12, 42, 13, 43, and 14 are all the same reactants.
S88 has them as one equation with yields roughly equal to what is used by B92, but S88 ignores 14, which is minor but maybe important for NO
S88 and B92 have a 50% larger rate for this, probably because the difference branches to N(2D)
42
N+ + O2 → O2+ + N(2D)
8.25e-11
G18

B92 and S88 ignored the N2D yield and put it all on N4S
68
O2+ + N(2D) → N+ + O2
2.5e-10
G18

Reverse of above reaction. Not in B92 nor S88
13
N+ + O2 → NO+ + O(1D) 
1.98e-10
G18

S88 and B92 had somewhat similar (but B92 had no yields of O(1D))
43
N+ + O2 → NO+ + O
4.95e-11
G18

S88 and B92 had somewhat similar (but B92 had no yields of O(1D))
14
N+ + O2 → O+ + NO
2.8e-11
G18

B92 had a 25% higher rate
44
N+ + NO → NO+ + N
5.73e-9 * Tn**-0.44
G18
P14
Not in B88 nor B92, probably b/c it's from a D-region review paper and gets slower with temperature
45
N+ + NO → N2+ + O
7.08e-10 * Tn**-0.44
G18
P14
Not in B88 nor B92, probably b/c it's from a D-region review paper and gets slower with temperature
15
N+ + O → O+ + N
2.2e-12
G18

S88 has this listed but no yields I can find, so assume ground N4S
B92 (and S88?) have k=1e-12
16
NO+ + e → O + N(2D)
if Te<1200:
0.76*3.5e-7*xe**-0.69
if Te>=1200:
0.76*3.02e-7*xe**-0.56
G18
SS04
SS04 has rate valid to 5000 K but note that vibrational ionic states can reduce rate by factor of 3.
S88 has (combined) 2.3e-7(Te/300)**-0.5 from Mul and McGowen [1979] with fN2D=0.76
Barth uses (combined) 4.2e-7 * (Te/300)**0.85 from Torr et al (1976b) with fN2D=0.75
I branched it into two reactions
54
NO+ + e → O + N
if Te<1200:
0.24*3.5e-7*xe**-0.69
if Te>=1200:
0.24*3.02e-7*xe**-0.56
G18
SS04
I branched reaction 16 into two reactions
17
N + O2 → NO + O
1.5e-11*exp(-3600/Tn)
B09

Note that N(4S) also destroys NO
G18 has 1.5e-11*exp(-3573/Tn) from Strickland et al (1999)
B92 has 4.4e-12*exp(-3220/T)
B09 has 1.5e-11*exp(-3600/T)
P05 has 1.1e-14 * T * np.exp(-3150/T) (increased NO in my toy model by 33%, but maybe not applicable in our temperature regime)
SN09 has 4.4e-12*exp(-3220/Tn)
Whatever I use it should be consistent with loss rate, 21.
What if this rate goes way up with O2*? Aladjev and Kirillov have a discussion of this. But since [N2] > [O2] and [O] > [N], I'll focus on O+N2(v) for NO production.
76
N + O → NO
3.33e-16 * Tn**-0.5 * (1 - 0.567*Tn**-0.5)
G18

This reaction produces IR radiation which is ignored here
18
N(2D) + O2 → NO + O
0.9*6.2e-12*xn
G18
D03
  • This is the dominant source of NO in aurora [C07]
  • S88 and B92 used 6e-12 (combined)
  • B09/TIEGCM has 5e-12 (combined), but I think their focus is on lower temperature.
  • S88 notes that the rate coefficient may be an order of mangitude greater at thermospheric temperatures
  • See Duff et al (2003) which gives (combined) 6.2e-12 * T/300!! Based on this paper I wonder if it could be cranked up even higher at high temperature.
    • I'm not sure if D03 has the branching ratios
    • I doubt this is appropriate at high temperature but who knows.
  • Grubbs has 0.1 branch to O(1D)
  • Duff et al (2005) notes that this and 17 produce NO which is vibrationally and rotationally excited, and thus affects other reaction rates for NO loss
  • If O2 is excited, it could affect the reaction rate [Rodger et al, 1992]. Another knob to turn!

49
N(2D) + O2 → NO + O(1D)
0.1*6.2e-12*xn
G18
D03
I created two reactions out of the reaction above, so the same notes above apply here. This is probably such a small source of O(1D) which will never radiate anyway. (But some sources say it is the main source of O(1D) in the airglow and aurora?!)
50
N(2D) + N2 → N + N2
1e-13 * exp(-510/Tn)
G18

Not in S88 nor B92, probably b/c it's negligible
19
N(2D) + e → N + e
3.8e-12 * Te**0.81
G18

B92 uses 6e-10 * (Te/300)**0.5 but from the same ultimate source as S88??
S88 uses 5.5e-10 * (Te/300)**0.5 from the same source as B92??
20
N(2D) + O → N + O
1.26e-12
G18

S88 combined rate is 1.8e-12 from Davenport et al (1976)
B92 combined rate is 1e-12 from Fesen et al (1989) & Siskind (1988)
51
N(2D) + O → N + O(1D)
1.4e-13
G18

I branched reaction 20 into 3 separate branches. B92 has this one at 0.1
52
N(2D) + O → NO+ + e
2.5e-18 * Tn**0.5 * (2205+Tn)*exp(-4410/Tn)
G18

I branched reaction 20 into 3 separate branches. Neither B92 nor S88 has this one, probably negligible
53
N(2D) + O+ → N+ + O
1.3e-10
G18

Not in S88 nor B92, probably b/c it's negligible
21
N + NO → N2 + O
1.6e-10*exp(-460/Tn)
B09

  • This is the principal reaction that destroys NO [Barth et al 2009]
  • B09 has 1.6e-10*exp(-460/Tn)
  • P11 p145 talks about N2* production from this reaction, which is an important source, and has rates for individual levels.
  • G18 has 2.2e-11*exp(+160/Tn) [Tn < 400 K] and 3.3e-11 [Tn > 400 K] (They had a typo, - instead of +. I checked Strickland et al (1999) to be sure)
  • B92 has 3.4e-11
  • P05 has 1.05e-12 * sqrt(Tn), but maybe not applicable to our temperature regime
  • Whatever I use I should probably have it be consistent with N(4S) production (17)
  • This produces N2(v). Rates are given in P11 review. Probably a second-order effect but might increase lifetime.
22
N(2D) + NO → N2 + O
7e-11
B92

Maybe this produces N2* like the above?
38
N(2D) + NO → N + NO
6.7e-11
G18

(Not colored gray because NO is neither created nor destroyed)
S88 has 7e-11
23
O + e → O(1D) + e
0.15 * Te**0.5 * (8537 + Te)/(34191 + Te)**3 * exp(-22756/Te)
MC91

This is the SAR arc mechanism and should be checked. 
  • S88 has 2.6e-11 * Te**0.5 *exp(-22740/Te) which is ultimately from Link [1982] which was before Kozyra paper.
  • Mantas and Carlson (1991) have 0.15 * Te**0.5 * (8537 + Te)/(34191 + Te)**3 * exp(-22756/Te), which is about 25% larger than S88
24
O(1D) + N2 → O + N2
1.8e-11*exp(107/Tn)
G18
TS14
S88 has 2e-11*exp(107.8/Tn) which is similar
Kalogerakis et al (2009) has a discussion of a new 2006 NASA/JPL recommended rate that is higher than these two values. See plot below. This will make a difference in red line rate and profile!
25
O(1D) + O2 → O + O2
3.2e-11*exp(67/Tn)
G18
TS14
S88 has 2.9e-11*exp(67.5/Tn) which is similar
59
O(1D) + NO → O + NO
1.5e-10
G18
S99
Not colored since NO is just a quencher
Not usually considered for red line, but might help understand red line in STEVE
26
O(1D) + e → O + e
8.1e-10 * xe**0.5
G18

S88 has the exact same rate
37
O(1D) + O → O + O
2.5e-11
G18
K09
  • S88 has 8e-12. I think this has been somewhat controversial over the years... I wonder if there are any updates.
  • G18 has 2.5e-11 from TS14 which is from Kalogerakis et al. (2009). TS14 has some other lab references for why this is so high. It matches HAARP heater experiments quite well, is from lab experiments, and matches WINDII red line.
  • S99 has 7e-12
  • Kalogerakis et al (2009) indicate that rate at 1000K is 25% higher than at 300K (2.5e-11 is the value "at thermospheric altitudes")
  • An example plot and table is copied below. This appears to have been controversial over the years, and may not be solved. If the new higher rate is correct, where did the theory go wrong?!
27
O(1S) + O → + O
2e-14
G18

Presumably it doesn't matter what state O is in?
G18 and S88 agree
55
O(1S) + O2 → O + O2
1.6e-12 * exp( -(6750-0.0151*Tn**2)/(8.314*Tn))
G18


74
O(1S) + e → O + e
1.56e-9 * xe**0.94
G18


75
O(1S) + e → O(1D) + e
8.56e-9
G18


56
O(1S) + O2 → O(1D) + O2
7.2e-13 * exp( -(6750-0.0151*Tn**2)/(8.314*Tn))
G18


57
O(1S) + NO → O(1D) + NO
5.12e-11
G18

Not colored since NO is just a quencher
Could this process explain the lack of green seen in STEVE? One would expect green emission but the elevated NO quenches it significantly
58
O(1S) + NO → O + NO
2.88e-11
G18

Not colored since NO is just a quencher
72
N+ e → N
3.6e-12*(250/Te)**0.7
G18

This emits, probably in the FUV somewhere like 1356 does for RR of O+, which is ignored here
73
O+ e → O
3.7e-12*(250/Te)**0.7
G18

This emits at 1356
101
O(1D) → O + hv6300A
8.59e-3
G18

In this model 6300 and 6364 are combined into a single emission
102
O(1S) → O(1D) + hv5577A
1.26
G18


103
O(1S) → O + hv2972A
7.5e-2
G18


104
N(2D) → N + hv5200A
6.6e-6
G18

B92 has 1.07e-5
109
N2(v>11) + O → NO + N
1e-11
P11
See P11 p164
  • If the other reactions can't explain how to get enough NO, I could use this reaction to predict how much N2* (i.e., N2(j)) is needed to explain STEVE. All of the N2? 1% of it? What vibrational distribution? Note that N2* has been observed in SAIDs (see Rodgers review and apparently Anderson 1992). And this explanation would require no plasma chemistry at all.
  • Mishin et al (1989) which I can't find, apparently used this to explain a lot of NO.
  • Does this branch to N(2D)? Prob no?
  • Interestingly this explanation doesn't involve the ionosphere or minor species in any way. Unrelated with NO+ in SAIDs.
  • Aladjev and Kirillov (1995) cite a Russian paper that calculates k=1e-11 (presumably independent of v) -- I should start with this
112
N2(v>4) + O(1D) → NO + N



This was speculated in Liang et al (2020). I've never seen a reaction rate for it, but I think it could be very important for STEVE if there's enough O(1D). It could even be a missing sink of O(1D). It makes sense energetically, but I'm not sure about the rate. It significantly lowers the vibrational level threshold and opens us up to many sources of vibrational excitation.



Reactions to ignore for now:
41
O + N→ NO + N


Zipf et al 1970
Suggested by Zipf et al (1970) but I haven't seen it anywhere else. It requires the O to be moving fast to achieve activation energy, which is going to require a whole bunch of kinetic theory since it's a neutral....
Wait - this is the same reaction as the one below. I guess it actually happens if the N2 is vibrationally excited.
111
N + O2(v) → NO + O



Aladjev and Kirillov (1995) mention this one. This is perhaps a special case of the above ground-state reaction, which is the primary mechanism of NO production.... or something. They have a v-dependent rate coefficient which I would have to think about the parameters for.
34
O2* + O → O2 + 0.1 O(1S) + 0.9 O
2.1e-11*exp(-1136/Tn)
S88

What is O2*?
S88 says 0.1 branching to O1S. I guess the rest goes to O3P?
35
O2* + N2 → O2 + N2
1e-13
S88

Can this excite N2(A)? TODO: Double check if this should be N2*
109
NO + O → NO2 + hvcont
1e-20
H12

This doesn't participate in the chemistry because it's so slow and because the NO2 gets recycled back into NO quickly. It will just be used to compute the brightness.
Hedin et al (2012) uses 1e-20 valid for 540 nm.
Sharp (1984) suggests temp dependence that hasn't been validated: 9e-20 * exp(-1060/(RT)) or in Hedin's translation: 1e-20*exp(530 * (1/296 - 1/T)). Most studies show results with and without T dependence
Note that this gives ph/nm, technically only valid at 540 nm.
The 3-body reaction path, while interesting, is omitted here. I should maybe include it to determine if the full altitude profile makes sense. Quenching should for sure be included if so.
I wonder if NO* could crank up this rate?
110
N(2D) + O2 → NO+ hvcont
6.2e-12*xn * B???


  • This is highly speculative and I can find no source for the reaction rate. Maybe I could start with assuming it all branches to this reaction at high temperature.
  • See reactions above which produce NO + O with branch to O(1D). (This is the dominant source of NO in aurora). If there's enough energy, or something, or O2 in excited states, then maybe this reaction creates NO2 with some branching ratio???
  • I asked on /r/askchem and one person thought it was impossible given the need to break the double bond of O and reform the bond with N. It's much easier for the O to just leave and carry away the excess energy

108
N2(A) → N2 + hvVK
0.352
G18


105
O+(2P) → O+ hv2470A
4.7e-2
G18


106
O+(2P) → O+(2D) + hv7320A
1.74e-1
G18

G18 separates 7320 and 7330 emissions
107
O+(2D) → O+ hv3727A
8.89e-5
G18


36
N2(A) + O → N2 + O(1S)
1e-11
G18
Z09
According to Henriksen and Egeland, 1988, this is the dominant source of green line in aurora.
S88 says 0.75 branching to O(1S). I guess the rest goes to O3P?
S88 uses 3.11e-11 combined (ave v=1,2)
C06 uses 2.5e-11(Tn/298)**0.55 and doesn't mention branching, seeming to imply 100% O(1S). I am worried about that temperature dependence applying at high T, so I'm going to use G18 from Z09, which has 0.36 branching to O(1S)
Split into two reactions
60
N2(A) + O → N2 + O
1.8e-11
G18
Z09
Split into two from the reaction above
40
N2(A) + O → NO + N(2D)
2e-11
C06

(C07) This dominates over the similar N2(v) reaction below in aurora, but N2(v) is more important at alt > 160 km
37
N2(A) + O2 → N2 + O2
4e-12
G18
S99
S88 has 4.1e-12
61
N2(A) + NO → N2 + NO
8.9e-11
G18
S99

62
N2(A) + N → N2 + N(2D)
4e-12
G18
S99
I'm not including the branch to N(2P) 
7
O+(2D) + N2 → N2+ + O
1.5e-10 * xn**-0.5
G18

S88 and B92 have 8e-10
46
O+(2D) + N2 → O+ + N2
8e-10
G18

S88 and B92 ignored this quenching reaction
8
O+(2D) + O2 → O2+ + O
1e-10 * xn**-0.5
G18

S88 has 7e-10 from Johnsen and Bionde [1980]
B92 has 1e-9 is from Torr and Torr [1982]
47
O+(2D) + NO → NO+ + O
1.2e-9
G18

Not in S88 nor B92. Seems like a high reaction rate, but low population I guess
64
O+(2D) + N → N+ + O
7.5e-11
G18

Not in S88 nor B92
28
O+(2D) + e → O+ + e
4e-8*xe**-0.5
G18

S88 has 6.6e-8 * (Te/300)**-0.5
29
O+(2D) + O → O+ O(1D)
2.5e-12
S88/G18

G18 has 5e-12 total and doesn't have branch to O(1D)
S88 has 1e-11, and I'm keeping his 0.5 branch to O(1D)
This is probably a negligible reaction, but if it's important I should double check the sources.
48
O+(2D) + O → O+ O
2.5e-12
G18

G18 doesn't have branch to O(1D)
S88 has 1e-11, and I'm keeping his 0.5 branch to O(1D)
30
O+(2P) + N2 → O + N2+
2e-10 * xn**-0.5
G18

S88 has 4.8e-10
63
O+(2P) + N2 → N+ + NO
1e-10
G18

Not in S88 nor B92
31
O+(2P) + O2 → O + O2+
3.1e-10 * xn**-0.5
G18

S88 has 4.8e-10
65
O+(2P) + N → N+ + O
1e-10
G18

Not in S88 nor B92
66
O+(2P) + NO → NO+ + O
2.9e-8
G18

Not in S88 nor B92
32
O+(2P) + e → O+ + e
2.5e-8 * xe**-0.5
G18

Seems irrelevant for high Te situations predicting 732 emission at first glance.
S88 has 1.7e-7*(Te/300)**-0.5 (combined)
73
O+(2P) + e → O+(2D) + e
7.0e-8 * xe**-0.5
G18

Split into two reactions
33
O+(2P) + O → O+ + O
5.2e-11
G18

S88 has 5e-11



(**) from Pavlov (2011), citing Dmitrieva and Zenevich (1984) theoretical calculation.


Cross section for N2(v) + O --> NO + N from Pavlov (2011)

Some more on N2 vibrational states from the internet:

https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C7727379&Mask=1000






A useful blurb on effective temperature from Pavlov (2012)




Another useful blurb on effective temperature from SL98



My annotations from ingesting Grubbs et al (2018):






Justification for only using 2-body reaction path for NO2
from Hedin et al [2012] Figure 1




From Abreu et al (1986), about rate of O(1D) + O → O + O
TS14 is by analyzing WINDII data. Also some lab justification for the larger rate
A86 is from VAE
S99 is from ??? but documents AURC.
Kalogerakis et al (2009) has new rate coefficient from ionospheric modification experiements.



Kalogerakis et al (2009):



From Torr and Torr (1979) which is not in Mendeley, JATP, vol 41, 0021-9169/79/0701-0797