1989
DOI: 10.1002/kin.550211203
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An absolute and relative rate study of the reaction of oh radicals with dimethyl sulfide

Abstract: The gas phase reaction of OH radicals with dimethyl sulfide (CH,SCH,, DMS) has been studied using both an absolute and a relative technique a t 295 2 2 K and a total pressure of 1 atm. The absolute rate technique of pulse radiolysis combined with kinetic spectroscopy was applied. Using this technique a rate constant of (3.5 t 0.2) x cm3 molecule-' sK1 was obtained. For the relative rate method, rate constants for the reaction of OH with DMS were found to increase with increasing concentrations of added NO. The… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
27
0

Year Published

1990
1990
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 25 publications
(27 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
0
27
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The kinetics of reaction 12 were measured relative to reactions Cl + 1,3-dioxolane f products (12) […”
Section: Atom Relative Rate Studies At Wuppertal and Fordmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The kinetics of reaction 12 were measured relative to reactions Cl + 1,3-dioxolane f products (12) […”
Section: Atom Relative Rate Studies At Wuppertal and Fordmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Major byproducts in the destruction of methanol are CO and NO x . The reactions of OH radicals with dimethyl sulfide (DMS) and the DMS oxidation process have been studied extensively in atmospheric chemistry [33][34][35][36][37]. These studies suggest that the major oxidation byproducts are SO 2 , and CO.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…(Table: [752] are presumably due to reactive impurities, while those of MacLeod et al [859] were most likely overestimated because of heterogeneous reactions. Absolute determinations lower than those recommended were obtained by Martin et al [878], Wallington et al [1392], and Nielsen et al [983]. The reasons for these differences are not readily apparent.…”
Section: -104mentioning
confidence: 41%