Table C.1
Chemical network used for the model. Rate coefficients α(T/300)βexp(-γ/T) are in units of cm3 s−1. ΔHR in kJ mol−1. Reactions highlighted in grey such as 15 are not included in the network.
| # | Reaction | ΔHR | α | β | γ | ref |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | H3+ + C5H5 → C5H6+ + H2 | -407 | 2.0E-09 | -0.5 | 0 | Typical rate constant for H3+ reaction with hydrocarbon Anicich (2003) |
| 2 | H3+ + C5H6 → C5H7+ + H2 | -395 | 2.0E-09 | -0.5 | 0 | Typical rate constant for H3+ reaction with hydrocarbon Anicich (2003) |
| 3 | C+ + C5H6 → C + C5H6+ | 2.4E-09 | 0 | 0 | Branching ratio from Smith & Futrell (1978) rate equal to C+ + C6H6 | |
| 4 | CH3+ + CH2CHCHCH2 → C5H7+ + H2 | -366 | 3.0E-10 | 0 | 0 | Approximate guessed branching ratios. |
| C2H5+ + CH3CCH | -123 | 3.0E-10 | 0 | 0 | ||
| C2H3+ + C3H6 | -73 | 3.0E-10 | 0 | 0 | ||
| 5 | C2H3+ + C3H6 → C5H7+ + H2 | -293 | 1.0E-10 | -0.5 | 0 | |
| CH2CHCCH2+ + CH4 | -166 | 0 | One very old study, Fuchs (1961) leading to C4H5+ + CH4 only which is a strange result considering the C2H3+ + c-C3H6 reaction which leads to C3H5+ + C2H4 and C3H7+ + C2H2. | |||
| CH3CCCH2+ + CH4 | -138 | 2.0E-10 | -0.5 | 0 | ||
| CH3CHCCH+ + CH4 | -122 | 0 | ||||
| C3H5+ + C2H4 | -122 | 5.0E-10 | -0.5 | 0 | ||
| C3H7+ + C2H2 | -73 | 2.0E-10 | -0.5 | 0 | ||
| c–C5H8+ + H | -26 | 0 | ||||
| 6 | C2H4+ + CH3CCH → C5H7+ + H | -176 | 1.0E-09 | -0.5 | 0 | This work and Anicich et al. (2006) |
| C4H5+ + CH3 | -47 | 6.0E-10 | -0.5 | 0 | ||
| C3H6+ + C2H2 | -59 | 1.2E-10 | -0.5 | 0 | ||
| C3H5+ + C2H3 | +18 | 0 | ||||
| CH3CCH+ + C2H4 | -8 | 5.0E-10 | -0.5 | 0 | ||
| 7 | C2H4+ + CH2CCH2 → C5H7+ + H | -176 | 7.0E-11 | 0 | 0 | This work |
| C4H5+ + CH3 | -47 | 0 | ||||
| C3H6+ + C2H2 | -59 | 0 | ||||
| C3H5+ + C2H3 | +18 | 0 | ||||
| CH2CCH2+ + CC2H4 | -65 | 1.1E-09 | 0 | 0 | ||
| 8 | C2H5+ + CH3CCH → C5H7+ + H2 | -243 | 2.0E-10 | -0.5 | 0 | Rate equal to 1.1E-09 Lifshitz et al. (1981). Approximate guessed branching ratios |
| CH3CCCCH2+ + CH4 | -89 | 2.0E-10 | -0.5 | 0 | ||
| C3H5+ + C2H4 | -72 | 7.0E-10 | -0.5 | 0 | ||
| C3H7+ + C2H2 | -56 | 0 | ||||
| 9 | C2H5+ + CH2CCH2 → C5H7+ + H2 | -243 | 4.0E-10 | 0 | 0 | Rate equal to 1.1E-09 Lifshitz et al. (1981). Approximate guessed branching ratios |
| CH3CCCH2+ + CH4 | -89 | 4.0E-10 | 0 | 0 | ||
| C3H5+ + C2H4 | -72 | 1.6E-09 | 0 | 0 | ||
| C3H7+ + C2H2 | -56 | 0 | ||||
| 10 | l–C3H3+ + C2H4 → C5H7+ + hν | -405 | 0 | Mallo et al. (2025); Smyth et al. (1982) | ||
| C5H6+ + H | -82 | 0 | ||||
| c–C5H5+ + H2 | -169 | 1.0E-10 | 0 | 0 | ||
| C3H5+ + C2H2 | -63 | 0 | ||||
| CH3CCH2+ + C2H2 | -46 | 1.0E-09 | 0 | 0 | ||
| 11 | C3H4+ + C2H4 → C5H7+ + H | -111 | 7.4E-10 | 0 | 0 | McEwan & Anicich (2007). Older values from Anicich et al. (2006) are slightly different. C4H5+: c-C3H2CH3+ |
| C4H5+ + CH3 | -64 | 9.0E-11 | 0 | 0 | ||
| 12 | C3H5+ + C2H4 → C5H7+ + H2 | -171 | 1.2E-10 | 0 | 0 | |
| McEwan et al. (1998). Others values: 7.7E-11 Anicich et al. (2003), 8.9E-11 Anicich et al. (2006) | ||||||
| 13 | C3H6+ + C2H2 → C5H7+ + H | -117 | 7.4E-10 | 0 | 0 | a |
| C4H5+ + CH3 | -72 | 9.0E-11 | 0 | 0 | ||
| 14 | C3H7+ + C2H2 → c–C5H9+ + hν | -211 | 0 | b | ||
| C5H7+ + H2 | -187 | 5.0E-10 | 0 | 0 | ||
| c–C5H8+ + H | +80 | 0 | ||||
| 15 | C4H2+ + C3H6 → C7H7+ + H | -355 | Likely not a source of C5H7+ | |||
| C5H6+ + C2H2 | -268 | |||||
| 16 | C4H3+ + CH4 → C5H7+ | -347 | Entrance barrier equal to +26 kJ/mol Mallo et al. (2025) | |||
| 17 | C4H3+ + C3H6 → C6H5CH3+ + H | -175 | Potential (minor) source of C5H7+ but requires further investigation | |||
| C5H7+ + C2H2 | -214 | |||||
| C5H5+ + C2H4 | -150 | |||||
| 18 | C4H4+ + CH4 → C5H7+ + H | -70 | Entrance barrier equal to +38 kJ/mol Mallo et al. (2025) for CH2CHCCH+ isomer | |||
| 19 | C4H5+ + CH4 → C5H7+ + H2 | -127 | ||||
| Likely a barrier in the entrance valley | ||||||
| 20 | C5H5+ + H2 → C5H7+ + hν | -235 | Large entrance barrier Mallo et al. (2025) | |||
| 21 | C5H6+ + H → C5H7+ + hν | -323 | 1.0E-11 | -0.5 | 0 | / H + C6H6+ Snow et al. (1998); Petrie et al. (1992) |
| C5H5+ + H2 | -88 | 0 | ||||
| 22 | C5H6+ + O → C4H6+ + CO | -339 | 1.0E-10 | 0 | 0 | Scott et al. (2000) |
| 23 | C5H6+ + H2 → C5H8+ | -57 | Very large entrance barrier at M06-2X/AVTZ level (this work) | |||
| C5H7+ + H | +102 | |||||
| 24 | C6H6+ + N → C5H5+ + HCN | -229 | 1.4E-10 | 0 | 0 | McEwan et al. (1999) |
| 25 | C6H6+ + O → C5H6+ + CO | -376 | 9.5E-11 | 0 | 0 | Snow et al. (1998); Scott et al. (2000) |
| C4H4O+ + C2H2 | 1.0E-11 | 0 | 0 | |||
| 26 | HCO+ + C5H5 → C5H6+ + CO | -264 | 1.0E-09 | 0 | 0 | Capture rate theory |
| 27 | HCO+ + C5H6 → C5H7+ + CO | -252 | 1.0E-09 | 0 | 0 | Capture rate theory |
| 28 | H + C4H5 → C4H6 + hν | -418 | 0 | Harding et al. (2007). Branching ratio deduced from C4H6 photodissociation Mu et al. (2004); Newby et al. (2007); Lee et al. (2003) | ||
| CH3 + C3H3 | -41 | 2.0E-10 | 0 | 0 | ||
| H2C2 + C2H4 | -50 | 0 | ||||
| 29 | H + l–C5H5 → C5H5 + H | -118 | 1.0E-10 | 0 | 0 | c |
| CH3CCH + C2H2 | -183 | 2.0E-11 | 0 | 0 | ||
| CH2CCH2 + C2H2 | -183 | 8.0E-11 | 0 | 0 | ||
| 30 | H + C5H5 → C5H6 + hν | -335 | 2.0E-10 | 0 | 0 | Deduced from high pressure rate constant Harding et al. (2007). Value for T=10K. The TS toward the bimolecular channel are above the entrance energy Bacskay & Mackie (2001) |
| CH3C4H + H2 | -77 | 0 | ||||
| CH3CCH + C2H2 | -66 | 0 | ||||
| CH2CCH2 + C2H2 | -66 | 0 | ||||
| 31 | C + C3H6 → CH3 + C3H3 | -246 | 1.5E-10 | 0 | 0 | Chastaing et al. (1999); Loison & Bergeat (2004); Chin et al. (2013); Capron et al. (2015) |
| H + C4H5 | -212 | 1.5E-10 | 0 | 0 | ||
| 32 | C + CH2CHCHCH2 → l–C5H5 + H | -233 | 3.6E-10 | 0 | 0 | Rate from Husain & Ioannou (1997) (with a smaller value), branching ratio from Hahndorf et al. (2000) |
| C2H3 + C3H3 | -189 | 4.0E-11 | 0 | 0 | ||
| 33 | C + C5H5 → C6H4 + H | -292 | 4.0E-10 | 0 | 0 | / C + C5H6 |
| C2H3C4H + H | -257 | 0 | ||||
| HCCCHCHCCH + H | -245 | 0 | ||||
| 34 | C + C5H6 → C6H5 + H | -312 | 4.0E-10 | 0 | 0 | Haider & Husain (1993) (with lower rate) |
| 35 | CH + CH2CHCHCH2 → C5H6 + H | -354 | 4.0E-10 | 0 | 0 | He et al. (2020); McCarthy et al. (2021); Cernicharo et al. (2022) |
| 36 | CH + C5H6 → C6H6 + H | -439 | 4.0E-10 | 0 | 0 | Products from Caster et al. (2021) |
| 37 | CH2 + C4H5 → C5H6 + H | -323 | d | |||
| C2H3C2H + CH3 | -244 | |||||
| C3H3 + C2H4 | -275 | |||||
| C3H5 + C2H2 | -277 | |||||
| 38 | CH3 + C3H3 → C4H6 + hν | -372 | 1.0E-10 | 0 | 0 | Deduced from high pressure rate constant Knyazev & Slagle (2001). Value for T=10K only. |
| 39 | CH3 + C4H3 → C5H6 | -485 | We do not consider this reaction which likely produces little to no cyclopentadiene since it requires multiple isomerization and a complex pathway. | |||
| C5H5 + H | -149 | |||||
| C4H2 + CH4 | -246 | |||||
| C3H3 + C2H3 | -2 | |||||
| C3H2 + C2H4 | -25 | |||||
| 40 | C2H + C3H6 → C2H3C2H + CH3 | -156 | 1.0E-10 | 0 | 0 | Bouwman et al. (2012); Goettl et al. (2022) |
| l–C5H6 + H | -120 | 1.0E-10 | 0 | 0 | ||
| C5H6 + H | -238 | 0 | ||||
| 41 | C2H3 + C3H3 → CH2CHCHCCH + H | -43 | 1.0E-11 | 0 | 0 | e |
| CH2CHCCCH2 + H | -36 | 1.0E-11 | ||||
| C5H5 + H | -161 | 3.0E-11 | ||||
| 42 | N + C5H5 → C2H3C2H + HCN | -311 | 6.0E-11 | 0 | 0 | / N + radical reactions |
| 43 | O + C5H5 → c–C5H4O + H | -232 | 1.1E-10 | 0 | 0 | Frank et al. (1994) |
| C2H3C2H + HCO | -181 | 0 | ||||
| C4H5 + CO | -310 | 0 | ||||
| 44 | O + C6H5 → C5H5 + CO | -420 | 1.1E-10 | 0 | 0 | Frank et al. (1994) |
| 45 | C5H6+ + e− → C5H5 + H | -476 | 1.0E-06 | -0.3 | 0 | By comparison with similar reactions. |
| CH3CCH + C2H2 | -542 | 5.0E-07 | -0.3 | 0 | ||
| CH2CCH2 + C2H2 | -542 | 5.0E-07 | -0.3 | 0 | ||
| 46 | C5H7+ + e− → C5H6 + H | -488 | 2.0E-06 | -0.3 | 0 | See text. |
| C2H3C2H + CH3 | -409 | 0 | ||||
| CH2CCCH2+ + CH3 | -409 | 0 |
a The C3H6+ + C2H2 reaction is a potential source of C5H7+, but it must be a minor source since C3H6+ is not very abundant. We use the same rates as for the iso-electronic reaction C3H4+ + C2H4.
b There are two isomers for C3H7+: CH3CHCH3+ (the most stable) and CH3CH2CH2+ (+52 kJ/mol) separated by TS a localized +85 kJ/mol above CH3CHCH3+. Both isomers should exist in dense molecular cloud. We conducted preliminary calculations showing that the isomer CH3CH2CH2+ reacts with C2H2 to produce C5H7+ + H2. Further study is needed, but this reaction is likely an important pathway for the production of C5H6, as both C3H7+ and C2H2 are fairly abundant in the model.
c l–C5H5 (several mesomeric forms: H2C=CH–CH–CC–H ↔ H2C=CH–CH=C=C–H ↔ H2C–CH=CH–CC–H) is produced by C + CH2CHCHCH2 and will react without a barrier on the singlet surface (doublet-doublet reaction) to yield H2C=CH–CH2–CC–H (likely the main product as H2C=CH–CH–CC–H is the most stable configuration), H2C=CH–CH=C=CH2 and CH3–CH=CH–CC–H. H2C=CH–CH2–CC–H can lead to c–C5H6 through a TS localized -84 kJ/mol below the H + l–C5H5 entrance level and then to C5H5 + H (without exit TS), or to CH2CCH2 + C2H2 through a TS localized -65 kJ/mol below the H + l–C5H5 entrance level Bacskay & Mackie (2001). The TS involved have similar energies and structures and then H2C=CH–CH2–CC–H should lead to H + c–C5H5 and CH2CCH2 + C2H2 in a similar amount. H2C=CH–CH=C=CH2 can lead to c–C5H6 through a TS localized -144 kJ/mol below the H + l–C5H5 entrance level and then to C5H5 + H (without exit TS) or to CH2CCH2 + C2H2 through a TS localized -77 kJ/mol below the H + l–C5H5 entrance level Bacskay & Mackie (2001). So H2C=CH–CH=C=CH2 should lead mainly to H + c–C5H5. The preferential production of c–C5H5 is also observed during the pyrolysis of c–C5H6 Bacskay & Mackie (2001); Roy et al. (1998). Further studies on this reaction will be necessary to obtain more accurate rates for this important reaction for c–C5H6 modeling in interstellar media.
d The reaction CH2 + C4H5 → C5H6 + H is most certainly rapid at low temperatures as radical-radical reaction. The first step of this reaction is the formation of the linear C5H7 adduct. There are several isomers of C4H5 produced in the network through mostly through the C + C3H6 reaction Chastaing et al. (1999); Loison & Bergeat (2004); Chin et al. (2013); Capron et al. (2015) and for the most stable one, CH3CCCH2, multiple mesomeric forms exist, leading to the possible production of a large number of C5H7 isomers. The production of c–C5H6 may be possible but would require numerous isomerization of the initial C5H7 adducts and is likely unfavored. Moreover, even though the reactants are produced by efficient reactions, they react with atoms (H, C, O, and N) without a barrier and have relatively low concentrations in dense clouds, limiting the significance of this reaction. Nevertheless, we performed a run assuming a rate of 1 × 10−10 cm3 s−1 for the CH2 + C4H5 → C5H6 + H reaction as a test and thus showing that this reaction is negligible under dense cloud conditions.
e The first step is CH2CHCH2CCH and CH2CHCHCCH2 formation without barrier (radical-radical association). The TS for CH2CHCH2CCH → CH2CHCHCCH2 is located -63 kJ/mol below C2H3 + C3H3. The TS for CH2CHCHCCH2 → CH2CHCHCHCH is located -115 kJ/mol below the entrance level and it seems that there is no, or very low, barrier for CH2CHCHCHCH cyclisation toward C5H6.
Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.
Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.
Initial download of the metrics may take a while.