Role of (NO)<sub>2</sub> Dimer in Reactions of Fe<sup>+</sup> with NO and NO<sub>2</sub> Studied by ICP-SIFT Mass Spectrometry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a recent publication by J. J. Melko et al. (J. Phys. Chem. A2012, 116, 11500-11508) on the reactions of Fe(+) cations with NO and NO2, these authors made a number of assertions regarding the work previously published in our laboratory. Melko et al. assert that our previously reported data was erroneously analyzed, resulting in our misreporting of the Fe(+) + NO2 reaction branching ratio for NO(+). Also, they proposed that this alleged misreporting made it likely for the second-order chemistry observed in our Fe(+) + NO experiments to be a product of an impurity of NO2 in our NO reagent and, furthermore, that our reported rate coefficient for the effective second-order chemistry was unreasonably high on the basis of their model calculations. Despite extensive private communications in which we presented detailed data supporting our original data analysis to Melko et al., these authors proceeded to publish their critique without any reference to this data. Here, we present the data communicated by us to Melko et al. and show that our result reported earlier for the Fe(+) + NO2 reaction branching ratio to form NO(+) is accurate and, furthermore, that there is no evidence for a sufficient NO2 impurity in any of our NO experiments. We suggest that the discrepancy in the results observed by us and Melko et al. may be attributed to a reaction with the dimer (NO)2. This possibility was dismissed in our earlier work as the dimer concentration under the flow tube conditions was calculated to be below 10(-5)% of the monomer, but the new results of J. J. Melko et al. raise the dimer reaction as a real possibility. Finally, J. J. Melko et al. appear to have misunderstood the mechanism of the second-order NO chemistry that we had proposed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".