Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 275

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 18 of the 18 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Active Thermochemical Tables: Accurate Enthalpy of Formation of Hydroperoxyl Radical, HO2

Ruscic, Branko, Pinzon, Reinhardt E., Morton, Melita L., Srinivasan, Nanda K., Su, Meng-Chih, Sutherland, James W., Michael, Joe V.·2006·The Journal of Physical Chemistry A

Abstract

Through the use of the Active Thermochemical Tables approach, the best currently available enthalpy of formation of HO2 has been obtained as delta(f)H(o)298 (HO2) = 2.94 +/- 0.06 kcal mol(-1) (3.64 +/- 0.06 kcal mol(-1) at 0 K). The related enthalpy of formation of the positive ion, HO2+, within the stationary electron convention is delta(f)H(o)298 (HO2+) = 264.71 +/- 0.14 kcal mol(-1) (265.41 +/- 0.14 kcal mol(-1) at 0 K), while that for the negative ion, HO2- (within the same convention), is delta(f)H(o)298 (HO2-) = -21.86 +/- 0.11 kcal mol(-1) (-21.22 +/- 0.11 kcal mol(-1) at 0 K). The related proton affinity of molecular oxygen is PA298(O2) = 100.98 +/- 0.14 kcal mol(-1) (99.81 +/- 0.14 kcal mol(-1) at 0 K), while the gas-phase acidity of H2O2 is delta(acid)G(o)298 (H2O2) = 369.08 +/- 0.11 kcal mol(-1), with the corresponding enthalpy of deprotonation of H2O2 of delta(acid)H(o)298 (H2O2) = 376.27 +/- 0.11 kcal mol(-1) (375.02 +/- 0.11 kcal mol(-1) at 0 K). In addition, a further improved enthalpy of formation of OH is briefly outlined, delta(f)H(o)298 (OH) = 8.93 +/- 0.03 kcal mol(-1) (8.87 +/- 0.03 kcal mol(-1) at 0 K), together with new and more accurate enthalpies of formation of NO, delta(f)H(o)298 (NO) = 21.76 +/- 0.02 kcal mol(-1) (21.64 +/- 0.02 kcal mol(-1) at 0 K) and NO2, delta(f)H(o)298 (NO2) = 8.12 +/- 0.02 kcal mol(-1) (8.79 +/- 0.02 kcal mol(-1) at 0 K), as well as H(2)O(2) in the gas phase, delta(f)H(o)298 (H2O2) = -32.45 +/- 0.04 kcal mol(-1) (-31.01 +/- 0.04 kcal mol(-1) at 0 K). The new thermochemistry of HO2, together with other arguments given in the present work, suggests that the previous equilibrium constant for NO + HO2 --> OH + NO2 was underestimated by a factor of approximately 2, implicating that the OH + NO2 rate was overestimated by the same factor. This point is experimentally explored in the companion paper of Srinivasan et al. (next paper in this issue).

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/jp056311j

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 18 references

Cited by

See all 275

Metadata

Authors
Ruscic, B., Pinzon, R. E., Morton, M. L., Srinivasan, N. K., Su, M.-C., Sutherland, J. W., & Michael, J. V.
Venue
The Journal of Physical Chemistry A
Published
2006-04-01
Volume
110
Issue
21
Pages
6592-6601
ISSN
  • 1089-5639 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-5215
OpenAlex
W1974121142
Cited by
275
References
18
FWCI
12.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Active Thermochemical Tables: Accurate Enthalpy of Formation of Hydroperoxyl Radical, HO2. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1021/jp056311j
The paper
Ruscic, B., Pinzon, R. E., Morton, M. L., Srinivasan, N. K., Su, M.-C., Sutherland, J. W., & Michael, J. V. (2006). Active Thermochemical Tables: Accurate Enthalpy of Formation of Hydroperoxyl Radical, HO2. The Journal of Physical Chemistry A. https://doi.org/10.1021/jp056311j

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.