Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 99 references

Hydrogenation of acetaldehyde on interstellar ice analogs reveals limited destruction

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Acetaldehyde on interstellar ice survives hydrogen bombardment because the dominant reaction is an H-abstraction that immediately gets reversed, limiting net destruction to about 10%.

desk verdict Solid experimental-theoretical case that acetaldehyde resists hydrogenation via an abstraction/reformation loop; the 10% loss is real, but the 0.90 reformation branching ratio is an assumption, not a measurement. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.17529 v1 pith:J5BRSQB7 submitted 2024-12-23 astro-ph.GA

Germán Molpeceres , Thanh Nguyen , Yasuhiro Oba , Naoki Watanabe This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords interstellaricesacetaldehydehydrogenationH-abstractioninstantontheoryastrochemistrydeuteriumfractionationcomplexorganicmolecules
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Acetaldehyde is one of the most abundant complex organic molecules in space, so how it responds to the constant rain of hydrogen atoms on interstellar ice grains matters for whether it accumulates or gets converted into ethanol, ketene, methane, and CO. This paper combines high-level quantum chemical rate calculations with laboratory H and D atom exposure of acetaldehyde ice at 10 K to show that the molecule is far more resistant than previously thought: only about 10% is converted to other products. The reason is that H-abstraction at the formyl hydrogen (CH3CHO + H → CH3CO + H2) is up to four orders of magnitude faster than any H-addition channel, and the resulting acetyl radical CH3CO then reacts barrierlessly with another H atom to re-form CH3CHO (CH3CO + H → CH3CHO), closing a protective loop. The experiments confirm the loop through formation of CH3CDO when D atoms are used, and the authors recommend astrochemical models treat R8 with branching 0.90 and the minor channels R9–R11 with 0.03 each. A sympathetic reader cares because this supports acetaldehyde as an abundant and resilient molecule and explains the high CH3CDO/CH3CHO ratio observed in prestellar cores and hot cores.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the R1→R8 closed loop: a fast H-abstraction at the formyl position creates CH3CO + H2, and a barrierless radical–radical H addition back at the carbon reforms CH3CHO. It is carried quantitatively by instanton rate constants (semiclassical tunneling paths computed from rev-DSD-PBEP86(D4)/jun-cc-pV(T+d)Z geometries with CCSD(T) energy corrections) and by broken-symmetry DFT potential energy scans showing that R8–R10 are barrierless. The reaction–diffusion competition picture, k = kR/(kR + kDiff), is used to explain why the slower H-addition channels are suppressed even when H approaches from a favorable orientation, and experiments with isotopic D labeling provide the observable fingerprint (CH3CDO).

What would settle it

A two-isotope pulse experiment would settle it: first expose CH3CHO ice to D atoms long enough to drive the abstraction channel and form CH3CO, then switch to H atoms. If the closed loop R8 is real and dominant, CH3CO + H should rapidly produce unlabeled CH3CHO, and the total acetaldehyde inventory should remain near 90% while ketene, methane, and CO stay minor. If most of the surviving acetaldehyde was untouched rather than reformed, the D-to-H switch would produce little new unlabeled CH3CHO and the CH3CO would instead accumulate as H2CCO, CH4, and CO.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the CH3CHO + H reaction on interstellar ice analogues is dominated by H-abstraction at the aldehydic hydrogen, not by H-addition, and that this single branching choice protects the molecule. Rate constants from instanton theory, including nuclear tunneling and an implicit water-ice environment, put R1 (CH3CHO + H → CH3CO + H2) above all other channels by roughly four orders of magnitude at interstellar temperatures, with a kinetic isotope effect kH/kD of 34.7 at 50 K for this channel. The dominant product, the acetyl radical, then reacts with H essentially without a barrier at every position: addition at carbon reforms CH3CHO (R8), elimination at the methyl group gives ketene plus H2 (R9), addition at oxygen gives the carbene CH3COH (R10), and C–C cleavage gives CH4 + CO (R11). Experiments on 1 ML acetaldehyde on compact amorphous solid water and on Al at 10 K show only about 10% net destruction after two hours of H exposure, with the authors assigning the roughly 90% remaining to reformation via R8; D experiments directly show CH3CDO formation, the isotopic fingerprint of the abstraction–addition cycle. The paper concludes that acetaldehyde is resilient against hydrogenation, that ethanol is not a direct hydrogenation product of acetaldehyde, and that the observed H2CCO, CO, CH4, H2CO, CH3OH, and C2H5OH are all minor secondary products of the CH3CO radical chemistry.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that most of the acetaldehyde left after hydrogen exposure was consumed and then re-formed through CH3CO + H, rather than simply never having reacted; if most of it never reacted, the closed-loop protection would be overstated, although the 10% destruction result would still hold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Astrochemical models should treat CH3CHO hydrogenation as essentially a no-op: deactivate R2–R4 and set alpha(R8) = 0.90, with alpha(R9) = alpha(R10) = alpha(R11) = 0.03.
  • The H-abstraction/D-addition cycle gives a natural route to CH3CDO, explaining the unusually high CH3CDO/CH3CHO ratio in IRAS16293-2422.
  • Ethanol is not built by direct hydrogenation of acetaldehyde; the C2H5OH seen in experiments comes from secondary reactions of CH3CO (via CH3COH and CH3CHOH), so models linking CH3CHO to C2H5OH should be revised.
  • Minor products H2CCO, CO, CH4, H2CO, and CH3OH can all be accounted for through the CH3CO radical's subsequent H reactions, with CH4 and CO from R11 and CO hydrogenation producing H2CO and CH3OH.
  • Reactive desorption of acetaldehyde is not observed in these experiments, but the high exothermicity of R8 (about −399 kJ/mol) plus the low binding energy of CH3CHO makes chemical desorption a plausible channel that the paper cannot confirm.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the closed-loop picture generalizes, other interstellar molecules with a weakly bound abstractable hydrogen may be far more resistant to H-atom processing than their net hydrogenation would suggest; a testable prediction is that the ratio of H-abstraction to H-addition rate constants, not just barrier heights, decides which complex organic molecules survive on grains.
  • The paper's alpha(R8) = 0.90 is an effective branching ratio derived from the final CH3CHO inventory; as the paper acknowledges, if ketene hydrogenation also regenerates acetaldehyde, the true microscopic R8 branching could be lower while still reproducing the experiment.
  • A two-isotope pulse experiment would separate 'never reacted' from 'reformed' acetaldehyde: expose CH3CHO ice to D atoms to form CH3CO, then switch to H atoms; the closed-loop mechanism predicts rapid appearance of unlabeled CH3CHO, whereas a 'never reacted' explanation predicts little new unlabeled acetaldehyde.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper combines high-level instanton rate calculations for CH3CHO + H/D with hydrogenation and deuteration experiments on 1 ML CH3CHO on c-ASW and Al substrates at 10 K. The central claim is that H abstraction at the formyl position (R1) dominates H addition to acetaldehyde, that the resulting CH3CO radical reacts barrierlessly with H/D at all reactive positions, and that reformation of CH3CHO through CH3CO + H (R8) creates a protective closed loop that limits net destruction to about 10%. The authors derive rate constants from CCSD(T)/aug-cc-pVTZ//rev-DSD-PBEP86(D4) calculations, support them with CH3CDO formation in deuteration experiments, and use the measured surviving CH3CHO fraction to assign branching ratios alpha(R8)=0.90 and alpha(R9-R11)=0.03 in Appendix B. They also report minor products CO, CH4, H2CCO, H2CO, CH3OH, and C2H5OH, discuss reactive desorption, and provide modeling recommendations.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper is significant for astrochemistry: it identifies H abstraction rather than H addition as the dominant CH3CHO + H channel, explains the resilience of acetaldehyde against hydrogenation, and offers a mechanism for CH3CDO enrichment in prestellar cores. The high-level instanton rates, the explicit inclusion of nuclear tunneling, and the independent experiments showing CH3CDO formation are real strengths. The limited-destruction conclusion is supported by two independent legs and is likely to survive. However, the quantitative closed-loop branching ratio alpha(R8)=0.90 and the resulting modeling recommendations are not supported by the same evidence as the headline result, and the paper itself acknowledges that H2CCO hydrogenation could reform CH3CHO and alter the alpha values. Thus the central mechanistic narrative is defensible but needs revision to separate what is measured from what is inferred.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.1 and Appendix B] The inference that alpha(R8)=0.90 is not empirically established. The measured 10% decrease in the 1728 cm^-1 band is a remaining-fraction measurement; it does not by itself distinguish the picture in which most CH3CHO molecules are consumed and reformed through R8 from the picture in which only about 10% of CH3CHO molecules ever react. The text in Section 4.1 states that '90 percent of the reactive events in this direction, determined from the total fraction of CH3CHO remaining after concluding our experiments,' which converts a remaining fraction into a reactive-event fraction without justification. Appendix B compounds this by acknowledging that H2CCO hydrogenation to CH3CHO (Ferrero et al. 2023) could alter the alpha values and by giving no uncertainty on the 10% conversion. Since the closed-loop protection narrative and the modeling recommendations rest on alpha(R8)=0.90, this is a load-bearing gap. I suggest either relabeling alpha(R8) as a scenario-dependent quantity or adding a simple kinetic model that tests limiting cases (e.g., 10% reacted vs. 100% reacted with a 10% leak) against the observed product yields.
  2. [Section 3.1.3 and Table 2] The branching ratios for R9-R11 are not determined by either theory or experiment. For the CH3CO + H system, the barrierless scans in Figure 5 establish that channels R8-R10 are accessible, but no rate constants or branching ratios are computed for them; the reaction-diffusion argument following Eq. (2) assumes that all directions are equally possible without a quantitative orientational weighting. On the experimental side, Section 3.2.1 states that no distinct infrared features for CH3CO + H products could be observed in the pre-deposition experiments, so the alpha values are not measured directly either. The statement in Appendix B that the remaining 10% 'should be distributed along the different reaction channels R9-R11' is a modeling choice rather than a determination. This matters because the prominence of the 'closed loop that protects the molecule' is quantitatively tied to alpha(R8)=0.90; a much smaller alpha(R8) would still preserve the limited-destruction conclusion but would change the mechanistic emphasis.
  3. [Section 4.1 and Section 5, item 1] The abstract and conclusions describe the 10% as 'conversion to products different than CH3CHO', but the experiment measures net loss of the 1728 cm^-1 band. This loss could include reactive desorption, which Section 4.2 acknowledges is experimentally hard to separate from the 10% non-reformed fraction, as well as any undetected non-IR-active products. Thus the statement that 90% of CH3CHO remains 'unaffected or reformed' is not directly measurable in the present setup. This does not undermine the resilience conclusion, but the wording overstates the direct experimental support. Please distinguish explicitly between the measured band decrease and the inferred conversion to products different from CH3CHO.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.1.3] In the first paragraph, 'the study of the CH3O + H reaction' should read 'the study of the CH3CO + H reaction'.
  2. [Figure 5 caption] The caption does not explain the constrained C-H coordinate or the scan resolution behind the discontinuities in the R9 and R10 scans; please state these in the caption so readers can reproduce the reported behavior.
  3. [Appendix B] The recommended values alpha=0.90 for R8 and 0.03 for R9-R11 are presented without any uncertainty or sensitivity range, despite the paper's own caveat that H2CCO hydrogenation to CH3CHO could change them. A sensitivity statement would help modelers.
  4. [Figure 13 caption] The statement that the m/z = 30 signal in the D2 blank 'represents the fragmentation of CH3CHO' is not a standard assignment for CH3CHO mass spectra; please document the calibration or fragment spectrum used to support this assignment.
  5. [References] There are two separate entries for Jiménez-Serra et al. 2016 in the reference list; these should be consolidated.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

The experimentally 'constrained' reformation branching ratio α(R8)=0.90 is the measured 90% surviving acetaldehyde restated, so the closed-loop magnitude is the input measurement, not a derived prediction.

  1. self definitional [Section 4.1 and Appendix B (modeling recommendations, α(R8)=0.90)]
    "...based on the experiment, is the most likely outcome, with an 90 % of the reactive events in this direction, determined from the total fraction of CH3CHO remaining after concluding our experiments. ... If we consider that reaction R8 is the only reaction from the CH3CHO + H then, the 90% of remaining CH3CHO in our hydrogenation experiment (Section 3.2.1) must come from reaction R8 alone. ... Therefore we recommend settingα=0.90 for R8 and 0.03 for R9-R11."

    The experiment measures only net loss: the 1728 cm-1 band falls by ~10%, so 90% of CH3CHO remains. Section 4.1 itself allows the remainder to be 'either unaffected or reformed.' Appendix B converts that remaining fraction into a reactive-event branching ratio by assuming the 90% surviving molecules were consumed via R1 and quantitatively reformed via R8. A remaining fraction is not a reactive-event fraction: the same 10% loss is equally consistent with ~90% of CH3CHO never reacting, with R8 a minor channel. The paper's own caveat, that H2CCO hydrogenation reforming CH3CHO (Ferrero et al. 2023; Fedoseev et al. 2022) 'can vary' the α values, concedes the constraint is not unique.

full rationale

The central experimental conclusion (only ~10% net conversion of CH3CHO) is a direct FTIR measurement of the 1728 cm-1 band and is not circular. The instanton rate constants for R1-R4, with H-abstraction at the formyl position dominating by up to four orders of magnitude, are ab initio (CCSD(T)/rev-DSD-PBEP86) and are independently supported by the CH3CDO detection; the barrierless character of R8-R10 follows from broken-symmetry DFT scans. These give the mechanism independent content. The genuine circular step is narrower and quantitative: the branching-ratio 'constraint' α(R8)=0.90 (and α(R9-R11)=0.03 each) is presented as experimentally determined, but Appendix B obtains it by equating the measured 90% remaining CH3CHO with the fraction of reactive events that reform CH3CHO via R8. This is a self-definitional reduction: a surviving fraction is defined as a reformed fraction. The paper is transparent about the ambiguity, stating the remaining CH3CHO is 'either unaffected or reformed' and that H2CCO hydrogenation (Ferrero et al. 2023) would change the α values, which further shows the constraint is not forced by the data. Because the same 10% loss is compatible with a scenario in which only ~10% of molecules ever react, the closed-loop magnitude is not empirically fixed; it is the input restated as output. Self-citations (Molpeceres et al. 2022b, 2023) provide binding energies, methods, and context but are not load-bearing for the headline claim. Overall: partial circularity in the quantified branching ratios and modeling recommendations; the limited-destruction headline and the qualitative closed-loop mechanism survive on independent evidence.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on two families of assumptions: (i) the accuracy of the quantum chemical and instanton rate calculations, including the implicit surface and solvation treatment, and (ii) the inference that the measured 10 percent loss directly determines the CH3CO + H branching ratios. No new physical entities are introduced. The branching ratios alpha(R8)=0.90 and alpha(R9-R11)=0.03 are the paper's main fitted parameters.

free parameters (2)
  • alpha(R8): branching ratio for CH3CO + H to CH3CHO = 0.90
    Set equal to the fraction of CH3CHO remaining after H exposure in Section 3.2.1; the 10 percent loss is used to fix alpha(R8)=0.90 and alpha(R9-R11)=0.03 each in Appendix B. The paper states this requires 'chemical intuition and data interpretation.'
  • alpha(R9-R11): branching ratios for CH3CO + H side channels = 0.03 each
    Equal weights assigned to the three side channels to distribute the remaining 10 percent, with no experimental or theoretical constraint; Appendix B.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Instanton (semiclassical tunneling) theory gives accurate rate constants at 10-100 K for H/D transfer reactions
    Used throughout Section 3.1.2 to compute kH/kD; relies on the instanton approximation being valid for the studied barriers.
  • domain assumption The rev-DSD-PBEP86(D4)/jun-cc-pV(T+d)Z geometries and CCSD(T)/aug-cc-pVTZ single-point energies describe the CH3CHO + H PES accurately
    Section 2.1; the accuracy of the rate constants depends on this electronic structure level.
  • domain assumption Ice surface effects can be modeled by fixing the rotational partition function to unity (implicit surface) plus CPCM continuum solvation with epsilon=600
    Section 2.1 and Appendix A; validated only against a 2H2O cluster using DLPNO-CCSD(T), not against a full amorphous solid water surface.
  • domain assumption The 2H2O cluster test justifies the neglect of explicit water effects on the barriers
    Appendix A; the changes in activation energies are small but the cluster is minimal and the water restructuring in R4 is acknowledged.
  • domain assumption For CH3CO + H, broken-symmetry rev-DSD-PBEP86(D4) energies without CCSD(T) correction are adequate, with experiments serving as proxy benchmark
    Section 3.1.3; the authors acknowledge the larger error and the need for multireference methods for R11.
  • domain assumption Reaction-diffusion competition with equal orientation weights determines the branching among barrierless channels
    Section 3.1.3 and 4.1 and Figure 6; used to rationalize R8 dominance alongside R9-R11; the orientation weighting is assumed uniform.
  • domain assumption Energy dissipation occurs via the surface, and each reaction can be treated as an elementary step
    Section 3.1.1; standard for ice-surface astrochemistry, but untested for these specific intermediates.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hydrogenation of acetaldehyde on interstellar ice analogs reveals limited destruction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/J5BRSQB7

@misc{pith2026241217529,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hydrogenation of acetaldehyde on interstellar ice analogs reveals limited destruction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/J5BRSQB7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.17529}
}
read the original abstract

We sought to determine which are the main hydrogenation paths of acetaldehyde (CH3CHO). As a partially unsaturated molecule, CH3CHO can have links with more hydrogenated species, like ethanol (C2H5OH) or with more unsaturated ones, like ketene (H2CCO). We used highly accurate quantum chemical calculations to determine the reaction rate constants for the CH3CHO + H/D reaction. Our theoretical results are confronted against our experiments on the hydrogenation and deuteration of CH3CHO ice. We find that acetaldehyde resists hydrogenation, with only a 10\% of conversion to products different than CH3CHO. This is due to a predominance of H-abstraction at the HCO moiety, with reaction rate constants up to four orders of magnitude higher than the next possible reaction channel, that is hydrogenation at the aldehydic carbon. The formed CH3CO radical experiences barrierless or nearly barrierless reactions in all possible reaction positions, reforming CH3CHO and creating a closed loop that protects the molecule against hydrogenation. We constrain the branching ratios for the second reaction from experiments. Our experiments agree with the calculations and from the combination of both we can explain the presence of H2CCO, CO, CH4, C2H5OH, H2CO or CH3OH as minor products at the end of the reaction. We provide recommendations for future modeling efforts. Our results show limited destruction of acetaldehyde, reinforcing the vision of this molecule as an abundant and resilient COM. From the experiments, we are not able to observe the reactive desorption of this molecule. Our results align with other modeling works, showing that the link between CH3CHO and C2H5OH is not direct. Finally, our results can explain the excess of CH3CDO found in prestellar cores.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.17529 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. IRC profiles for reactions R1–R4 (We omit reaction R5 due to the high ∆H ‡ ). IRC profiles are presented at the rev-DSD-PBEP86(D4)/jun￾cc-pV(T+d)Z not corrected by ZPVE, double-level CCSD(T), or im￾plicit water ice environment (CPCM). 3.1.2. Kinetic Analysis and reactions with Deuterium We begin our instanton calculations using the sequential cooling scheme at a temperature of approximately 0.7Tc, starting from a cl… view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Top. Acetaldehyde molecule with the positions where the hy￾drogenation and deuteration reactions are sampled. Bottom. Newman projection of the molecular model showing the considered CH3CHO syn conformer Such IRC profiles can be visualized in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Arrhenius plot of the hydrogenation rate constants (kH) for reac￾tions R1–R4 including (dashed lines) and without including (solid lines) an implicit solvation model. All rate constants are corrected for implicit surface. Rate constants are presented until lowest temperature achiev￾able for each instanton in the sequential cooling scheme. R1 and R4 showing the most significant changes. Specifically, at low temperatu… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Potential energy scan for Reactions R8 (blue curve), R9 (red curve) and R10 (green curve) at the revDSD-PBEP86(D4)/jun-cc￾pV(T+d)z level using a broken symmetry formalism. The discontinu￾ities in r(H-H3) and r(H-O4) are caused by insufficient resolution of the PES scan…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Schematic view of the CH3CO + H reaction. Depending on the initial configuration of the H atoms, the different kR must compete with diffusion, kDiff. If kR ≫ kDiff, then the reaction would dominate even in the presence of a barrierless channel, as shown in the figure. …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: shows an FTIR spectrum of the solid CH3CHO on c￾ASW at 10 K. The most intense absorption peak at 1728 cm−1 was attributed to the C-O stretching band (νsC=O) in CH3CHO. Additionally, other infrared bands were observed at 1432, 1349, and 1124 cm−1 can be assigned to the …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (a) Variation in the difference spectra of the solid CH3CHO af￾ter exposure to H atoms for 3, 60, and 120 min at 10 K. (b) Relative abundance of CH3CHO following a 2-hour exposure to H atoms (blue circles) compared to that with H2 molecules (red squares) on c-ASW at 10…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: TPD-QMS profile of pre-deposited CH3CHO with H atoms (black line) comparable with H2 molecules (blue line) on c-ASW at 10 K: m/z = 16 (top panel), m/z = 28 (middle panel), and m/z = 46 (bottom panel). 3.2.2. Isotopic labeling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FTIR spectrum of codeposition of CH3CHO and H atoms on Al at 10 K [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: TPD-QMS profile for the m/z = 14 and 42. Black arrows cor￾respond to features attributable to H2CCO, obtained after the reaction of the pre-deposited CH3CHO with H atoms on c-ASW at 10K. The desorption peaks at 100–130 K and 140–150 K are derived from the remaining CH…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: TPD-QMS profile of m/z = 36 observed for the pre-deposition of CH3CHO and D atoms (black line) is compared with that of D2 molecules (blue line) on the Al substrate. involved CH3CO radicals with D atoms, leading a higher yield of different products. 4. Discussion 4.1.…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: TPD-QMS profile of pre-deposition of CH3CHO with D atoms (black line) comparable with D2 (blue line) on Al substrate at 10 K, m/z = 30 (top panel); m/z = 17 (middle panel), and m/z = 18 (bottom panel). The m/z = 30 (top panel) in the blue line represents the fragmenta…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: TPD-QMS profile for the desorption peak observed at m/z = 48 (black line) may be attributed to the formation of CH3CHDOD through the addition reaction of D to CH3CHO. This is in the comparison to the desorption behavior for D2 (blue line) on the Al substrate at 10 K .…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: TPD-QMS profiles of m/z = 49 and 50 (black lines) desorbed at around 130 - 200 K, likely corresponding to ethanol isotopologues CH3CD2OD and/or CH2DCD2OD. These species were yielded through the reaction of CH3CHO and D atoms, with behavior comparable to that of D2 mol…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

99 extracted references · 75 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    Hydrogen transfer reactions of interstellar Complex Organic Molecules

    Alvarez-Barcia, S., Russ, P., Kästner, J., & Lamberts, T. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 479, 2007, arXiv: 1806.02062

    work page Pith review arXiv 2018

  4. [4]

    Asgeirsson, V., Jónsson, H., & Wikfeldt, K. T. 2017, Journal of Physical Chemistry C, 121, 1648

    2017

  5. [5]

    & Faure , A

    Bacmann , A. & Faure , A. 2014, in SF2A-2014: Proceedings of the Annual meeting of the French Society of Astronomy and Astrophysics, ed. J. Ballet , F. Martins , F. Bournaud , R. Monier , & C. Reyl \'e , 3--8

    2014

  6. [6]

    2012, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 541, L12

    Bacmann, A., Taquet, V., Faure, A., Kahane, C., & Ceccarelli, C. 2012, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 541, L12

    2012

  7. [7]

    & Cossi, M

    Barone, V. & Cossi, M. 1998, The Journal of Physical Chemistry A, 102, 1995

    1998

  8. [8]

    Bartlett, R. J. & Purvis, G. D. 1978, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry, 14, 561

    1978

Show all 99 references
  1. [9]

    J., Jamieson , C

    Bennett , C. J., Jamieson , C. S., Osamura , Y., & Kaiser , R. I. 2005, , 624, 1097

    2005

  2. [10]

    E., Fuchs , G

    Bisschop , S. E., Fuchs , G. W., van Dishoeck , E. F., & Linnartz , H. 2007, Astron. Astrophys., 474, 1061

    2007

  3. [11]

    C., Savage, B

    Bohlin, R. C., Savage, B. D., & Drake, J. F. 1978, The Astrophysical Journal, 224, 132

    1978

  4. [12]

    T., et al

    Bonfand, M., Belloche, A., Garrod, R. T., et al. 2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 628, A27

    2019

  5. [13]

    2019, Journal of Chemical Physics, 150

    Caldeweyher, E., Ehlert, S., Hansen, A., et al. 2019, Journal of Chemical Physics, 150

    2019

  6. [14]

    Cazaux, S., Tielens, A. G. G. M., Ceccarelli, C., et al. 2003, Astrophys. J., 593, L51

    2003

  7. [15]

    2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed

    Ceccarelli , C., Caselli , P., Bockel \'e e-Morvan , D., et al. 2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed. H. Beuther , R. S. Klessen , C. P. Dullemond , & T. Henning , 859--882

    2014

  8. [16]

    2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 759, L43

    Cernicharo, J., Marcelino, N., Roueff, E., et al. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 759, L43

    2012

  9. [17]

    M., & Herbst, E

    Chang, Q., Cuppen, H. M., & Herbst, E. 2007, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 469, 973

    2007

  10. [18]

    J., Fedoseev, G., Ioppolo, S., van Dishoeck, E

    Chuang, K. J., Fedoseev, G., Ioppolo, S., van Dishoeck, E. F., & Linnartz, H. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 455, 1702

    2020

  11. [19]

    2015, Mon

    Codella, C., Fontani, F., Ceccarelli, C., et al. 2015, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. Lett., 449, L11

    2015

  12. [20]

    H., Margulès, L., Vastel, C., et al

    Coudert, L. H., Margulès, L., Vastel, C., et al. 2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 624, A70

    2019

  13. [21]

    Dunning, T. H. 1989, The Journal of Chemical Physics, 90

    1989

  14. [22]

    1930, Physical Review, 35, 1303, publisher: American Physical Society ISBN: 0031-899X

    Eckart, C. 1930, Physical Review, 35, 1303, publisher: American Physical Society ISBN: 0031-899X

    1930

  15. [23]

    2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 655, A9

    Enrique-Romero, J., Ceccarelli, C., Rimola, A., et al. 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 655, A9

    2021

  16. [24]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 259, 39

    Enrique-Romero, J., Rimola, A., Ceccarelli, C., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 259, 39

    2022

  17. [25]

    2022, , 924, 110

    Fedoseev , G., Qasim , D., Chuang , K.-J., et al. 2022, , 924, 110

    2022

  18. [26]

    H., et al

    Ferrer Asensio, J., Spezzano, S., Coudert, L. H., et al. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 670, A177

    2023

  19. [27]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 951, 150

    Ferrero, S., Ceccarelli, C., Ugliengo, P., Sodupe, M., & Rimola, A. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 951, 150

    2023

  20. [28]

    2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 516, 2586

    Ferrero, S., Grieco, F., Ibrahim Mohamed, A.-S., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 516, 2586

    2022

  21. [29]

    W., Cuppen, H

    Fuchs, G. W., Cuppen, H. M., Ioppolo, S., et al. 2009, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 505, 629

    2009

  22. [30]

    & Neese, F

    Garcia‐Ratés, M. & Neese, F. 2020, Journal of Computational Chemistry, 41, 922

    2020

  23. [31]

    Garrod , R. T. 2013, Astrophys. J., 765, 60

    2013

  24. [32]

    T., Jin, M., Matis, K

    Garrod, R. T., Jin, M., Matis, K. A., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 259, 1

    2022

  25. [33]

    T., Wakelam, V., & Herbst, E

    Garrod, R. T., Wakelam, V., & Herbst, E. 2007, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 467, 1103

    2007

  26. [34]

    A., Schutte , W

    Gerakines , P. A., Schutte , W. A., Greenberg , J. M., & van Dishoeck , E. F. 1995, , 296, 810

    1995

  27. [35]

    Gillan, M. J. 1987, Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics, 20, 3621, publisher: IOP Publishing

    1987

  28. [36]

    2018, The Journal of Chemical Physics, 148, 011101

    Guo, Y., Riplinger, C., Becker, U., et al. 2018, The Journal of Chemical Physics, 148, 011101

    2018

  29. [37]

    & Van Dishoeck, E

    Herbst, E. & Van Dishoeck, E. F. 2009, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 47, 427, publisher: Annual Reviews ISBN: 0066-4146

    2009

  30. [38]

    2004, , 614, 1124

    Hidaka , H., Watanabe , N., Shiraki , T., Nagaoka , A., & Kouchi , A. 2004, , 614, 1124

    2004

  31. [39]

    2019, Astrophys

    Holdship, J., Viti, S., Codella, C., et al. 2019, Astrophys. J., 880, 138

    2019

  32. [40]

    Hudson , R. L. 2017, Spectrochimica Acta Part A: Molecular Spectroscopy, 187, 82

    2017

  33. [41]

    2022, Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics, 24, 23245

    Ibrahim, M., Guillemin, J.-C., Chaquin, P., Markovits, A., & Krim, L. 2022, Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics, 24, 23245

    2022

  34. [42]

    2024, Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics, 26, 4200

    Ibrahim, M., Guillemin, J.-C., Chaquin, P., Markovits, A., & Krim, L. 2024, Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics, 26, 4200

    2024

  35. [43]

    2016, Astrophys

    Imai, M., Sakai, N., Oya, Y., et al. 2016, Astrophys. J., 830, L37

    2016

  36. [44]

    I., Caselli , P., et al

    Jim \'e nez-Serra , I., Vasyunin , A. I., Caselli , P., et al. 2016, , 830, L6

    2016

  37. [45]

    I., Spezzano, S., et al

    Jim \' e nez-Serra, I., Vasyunin, A. I., Spezzano, S., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 917, 44

    2021

  38. [46]

    I., Caselli, P., et al

    Jiménez-Serra, I., Vasyunin, A. I., Caselli, P., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 830, L6, arXiv: 1609.05045 Publisher: American Astronomical Society

    2016 arXiv

  39. [47]

    & Garrod, R

    Jin, M. & Garrod, R. T. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 249, 26, arXiv: 2006.11127 Publisher: American Astronomical Society

    2020 arXiv

  40. [48]

    K., Müller, H

    Jørgensen, J. K., Müller, H. S. P., Calcutt, H., et al. 2018, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 620, A170

    2018

  41. [49]

    2014, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Molecular Science, 4, 158

    K \"a stner, J. 2014, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Molecular Science, 4, 158

    2014

  42. [50]

    M., Keal, T

    K \"a stner, J., Carr, J. M., Keal, T. W., et al. 2009, J. Phys. Chem. A, 113, 11856

    2009

  43. [51]

    J., Hampel, C., & Werner, H.-J

    Knowles, P. J., Hampel, C., & Werner, H.-J. 1993, The Journal of Chemical Physics, 99, 5219

    1993

  44. [52]

    & Martin, J

    Kozuch, S. & Martin, J. M. 2011, Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics, 13, 20104, publisher: The Royal Society of Chemistry

    2011

  45. [53]

    2018, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 615, L2

    Lamberts, T. 2018, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 615, L2

    2018

  46. [54]

    C., et al

    Lamberts, T., Fedoseev, G., Van Hemert, M. C., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 928, 48

    2022

  47. [55]

    & Kästner, J

    Lamberts, T. & Kästner, J. 2017 a , The Astrophysical Journal, 846, 43, arXiv: 1708.05555 Publisher: IOP Publishing

    2017 arXiv

  48. [56]

    & Kästner, J

    Lamberts, T. & Kästner, J. 2017 b , Journal of Physical Chemistry A, 121, 9736, publisher: American Chemical Society

    2017

  49. [57]

    N., Kolb, F

    Lamberts, T., Markmeyer, M. N., Kolb, F. J., & K \"a stner, J. 2019, ACS Earth and Space Chemistry, 3, 958

    2019

  50. [58]

    I., & Jones, B

    Maity, S., Kaiser, R. I., & Jones, B. M. 2015, Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics, 17, 3081

    2015

  51. [59]

    2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 519, 1601

    Megías, A., Jiménez-Serra, I., Martín-Pintado, J., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 519, 1601

    2022

  52. [60]

    2017, ACS Earth and Space Chemistry, 1, 399, arXiv: 1708.05559 Publisher: American Chemical Society

    Meisner, J., Lamberts, T., & Kästner, J. 2017, ACS Earth and Space Chemistry, 1, 399, arXiv: 1708.05559 Publisher: American Chemical Society

    2017 arXiv

  53. [61]

    A., Keal, T

    Metz, S., Kästner, J., Sokol, A. A., Keal, T. W., & Sherwood, P. 2014, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Molecular Science, 4, 101

    2014

  54. [62]

    M., Riffelt, A., Oliveira, R., Kästner, J., & Molpeceres, G

    Miksch, A. M., Riffelt, A., Oliveira, R., Kästner, J., & Molpeceres, G. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 505, 3157

    2021

  55. [63]

    2024 a , Astronomy & Astrophysics, 688, A150

    Molpeceres, G., Furuya, K., & Aikawa, Y. 2024 a , Astronomy & Astrophysics, 688, A150

    2024

  56. [64]

    2022 a , Astronomy & Astrophysics, 663

    Molpeceres, G., Jimenez-Serra, I., Oba, Y., et al. 2022 a , Astronomy & Astrophysics, 663

    2022

  57. [65]

    & Kästner, J

    Molpeceres, G. & Kästner, J. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 910, 55

    2021

  58. [66]

    J., Peláez, R

    Molpeceres, G., Kästner, J., Herrero, V. J., Peláez, R. J., & Maté, B. 2022 b , Astronomy & Astrophysics, 664, A169

    2022

  59. [67]

    & Rivilla, V

    Molpeceres, G. & Rivilla, V. M. 2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 665, A27

    2022

  60. [68]

    M., Furuya, K., et al

    Molpeceres, G., Rivilla, V. M., Furuya, K., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 521, 6061

    2023

  61. [69]

    2024 b , The Journal of Physical Chemistry A, acs.jpca.3c08286

    Molpeceres, G., Tsuge, M., Furuya, K., et al. 2024 b , The Journal of Physical Chemistry A, acs.jpca.3c08286

    2024

  62. [70]

    K., Gorai, P., Sil, M., et al

    Mondal, S. K., Gorai, P., Sil, M., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 922, 194

    2021

  63. [71]

    2007, The Journal of Physical Chemistry A, 111, 3016

    Nagaoka, A., Watanabe, N., & Kouchi, A. 2007, The Journal of Physical Chemistry A, 111, 3016

    2007

  64. [72]

    2020, Journal of Chemical Physics, 152, 224108

    Neese, F., Wennmohs, F., Becker, U., & Riplinger, C. 2020, Journal of Chemical Physics, 152, 224108

    2020

  65. [73]

    2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 628, A15

    Nguyen, T., Fourré, I., Favre, C., et al. 2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 628, A15

    2019

  66. [74]

    Nguyen , T., Oba , Y., Sameera , W. M. C., et al. 2023, , 944, 219

    2023

  67. [75]

    Nguyen , T., Oba , Y., Sameera , W. M. C., Kouchi , A., & Watanabe , N. 2021 a , , 918, 73

    2021

  68. [76]

    Nguyen , T., Oba , Y., Sameera , W. M. C., Kouchi , A., & Watanabe , N. 2021 b , , 922, 146

    2021

  69. [77]

    2020, , 898, L52

    Nguyen , T., Oba , Y., Shimonishi , T., Kouchi , A., & Watanabe , N. 2020, , 898, L52

    2020

  70. [78]

    2014, FaDi, 168, 185

    Oba, Y., Osaka, K., Watanabe, N., Chigai, T., & Kouchi, A. 2014, FaDi, 168, 185

    2014

  71. [79]

    2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 228

    Oba, Y., Tomaru, T., Lamberts, T., Kouchi, A., & Watanabe, N. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 228

    2018

  72. [80]

    2014, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 564, A123

    Occhiogrosso, A., Vasyunin, A., Herbst, E., et al. 2014, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 564, A123

    2014

  73. [81]

    R., & Truhlar, D

    Papajak, E., Zheng, J., Xu, X., Leverentz, H. R., & Truhlar, D. G. 2011, Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation, 7, 3027

    2011

  74. [82]

    2023, , 525, 2654

    Perrero , J., Ugliengo , P., Ceccarelli , C., & Rimola , A. 2023, , 525, 2654

    2023

  75. [83]

    Purvis, G. D. & Bartlett, R. J. 1982, The Journal of Chemical Physics, 76, 1910

    1982

  76. [84]

    J., et al

    Qasim, D., Fedoseev, G., Chuang, K. J., et al. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 781, arXiv: 2004.02506

    2020 arXiv

  77. [85]

    2014, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 572

    Rimola, A., Taquet, V., Ugliengo, P., Balucani, N., & Ceccarelli, C. 2014, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 572

    2014

  78. [86]

    B., Goumans, T

    Rommel, J. B., Goumans, T. P., & K\"astner, J. 2011, J. Chem. Theory Comp., 7, 690

    2011

  79. [87]

    Santra, G., Sylvetsky, N., & Martin, J. M. L. 2019, The Journal of Physical Chemistry A, 123, 5129

    2019

  80. [88]

    R., Reisenauer, H

    Schreiner, P. R., Reisenauer, H. P., Ley, D., et al. 2011, Science, 332, 1300

    2011

  81. [89]

    2021, Mon

    Scibelli, S., Shirley, Y., Vasyunin, A., & Launhardt, R. 2021, Mon. Not. Royal Astron. Soc., 504, 5754

    2021

  82. [90]

    2017, Molecular Astrophysics, 6, 59

    Senevirathne, B., Andersson, S., Dulieu, F., & Nyman, G. 2017, Molecular Astrophysics, 6, 59

    2017

  83. [91]

    N., Tennis, J., Gal, R

    Shingledecker, C. N., Tennis, J., Gal, R. L., & Herbst, E. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 861, 20

    2018

  84. [92]

    A., Lamberts, T., & Cuppen, H

    Simons, M. A., Lamberts, T., & Cuppen, H. M. 2020, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 634, A52, arXiv: 2001.04895

    2020 arXiv

  85. [93]

    & Kästner, J

    Song, L. & Kästner, J. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 850, 118

    2017

  86. [94]

    Truong, T. N. & Stefanovich, E. V. 1995, Chemical Physics Letters, 240, 253

    1995

  87. [95]

    2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 499, 5547

    Vazart, F., Ceccarelli, C., Balucani, N., Bianchi, E., & Skouteris, D. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 499, 5547

    2020

  88. [96]

    J., Nomura, H., et al

    Walsh, C., Millar, T. J., Nomura, H., et al. 2014, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 563, A33

    2014

  89. [97]

    & Kouchi , A

    Watanabe , N. & Kouchi , A. 2002, , 571, L173

    2002

  90. [98]

    2006, P & SS, 54, 1107, simulations in Laboratory

    Watanabe, N., Nagaoka, A., Hidaka, H., et al. 2006, P & SS, 54, 1107, simulations in Laboratory

    2006

  91. [99]

    Woon, D. E. & Dunning, T. H. 1994, The Journal of Chemical Physics, 100, 2975, publisher: American Institute of Physics ISBN: 0021-9606

    1994

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.