2003
DOI: 10.1039/b304456d
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Absolute electron impact ionization cross-sections for the C1 to C4 alcohols

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

25
92
5

Year Published

2004
2004
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 74 publications
(122 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
25
92
5
Order By: Relevance
“…6 we include the calculation of the total ionization cross section using the binary Born-Bethe (BEB) method [53,54]. The present results using the BEB model are in excellent agreement with the measurements of Hudson et al [55]. The measurements of Duric et al [56] and Rejoub et al [52] are in good accord with the present results except at the peak where the results of Duric et al [56] are slightly lower, while the results of Rejoub et al [52] are slightly higher than the present results.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 80%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…6 we include the calculation of the total ionization cross section using the binary Born-Bethe (BEB) method [53,54]. The present results using the BEB model are in excellent agreement with the measurements of Hudson et al [55]. The measurements of Duric et al [56] and Rejoub et al [52] are in good accord with the present results except at the peak where the results of Duric et al [56] are slightly lower, while the results of Rejoub et al [52] are slightly higher than the present results.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 80%
“…The measurements of Duric et al [56] and Rejoub et al [52] are in good accord with the present results except at the peak where the results of Duric et al [56] are slightly lower, while the results of Rejoub et al [52] are slightly higher than the present results. The BEB results of Hudson et al [55] are slightly higher compared to the present results, and this may be attributed to the difference in the parameters used in the calculation for ionization cross sections. The results of Deutsch et al [57] are shifted towards a lower energy compared to other results.…”
Section: Resultscontrasting
confidence: 54%
“…where φ is the fragmentation fraction of CO and methanol at a specific mass, σ the total electron impact ionisation cross section of CO (or methane) and methanol at 70 eV and A the integrated QMS signal of CO or methanol. σ CO is given as 2.44Å 2 (Hudson et al 2004) and σ methanol is 4.44Å 2 (Hudson et al 2003). For methane it is 3.93Å 2 (Nishimura & Tawara 1994).…”
Section: Methanol Co-desorption Rate Determinationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In order to compare GA, EG and MF yields, the desorption QMS signals are integrated, then normalized to the total column density of the most abundant carbon-bearing species observed by RAIRS at the end of the co-deposition (see Fedoseev et al 2015;Chuang et al 2016). Then, the obtained values for GA, EG and MF are calibrated using the available literature ionisation cross-section values (Hudson et al 2003(Hudson et al , 2006Bull & Harland 2008). The uncertainty in the abundance determination is statistically derived by averaging the result from a number of identical experiments.…”
Section: Experimental Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%