Talk:Hydroxyl radical

message: I don't know how to edit the side bar on these pages, but the units on molar entropy are wrong. Numerically the value matches literature, but it should be J/K*mol not kJ/K*mol  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.65.169 (talk) 01:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  comment 

message: I'm not a chemist, so I am not going to mess with this article, but there should be just a wee mention of that rather common compound HOH, known also by it's vulgar name "water".  It could be regarded a degenerate alcohol (just put a 0 in the alkyl formula).  There are mentions of H2O deep in the article, but this being HOH is just implied, never stated.   Randall Bart    Talk   23:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about HOH? 

message: Didn't the IPCC predict a 20% drop in atmospheric hydroxyl in 2001? and NASA noticed a drop in the 1980's? --86.164.206.191 (talk) 02:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hydroxyl decrease? 

message: Actually the most correct form is HO-,that has been stated by IUPAC.
Please someone take the time to correct it and find suitable references.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.136.24.66 (talk) 18:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: We do not need to ref it. The H has formed its duplet and has no electron for another Covalent bond, but the oxygen has AddyC (talk) 17:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: So the notation •HO used in the article is incorrect?Which one should we use instead: "HO•" "HO-" "-OH" "•OH"?More generally, are dot and dash equivalent for IUPAC? Or is "-" used for functional groups (bound to something else), "•" for unsatisfied valences (in "free radicals")?I have been told that IUPAC allows the use of "radical" only if the unattached group is in certain spin states. Is that so? --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 16:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  "-" and "•" are definitely not equivalent. The former indicates a functional group when set regular and a negative charge when in superscript. The latter indicates an unpaired electron, which is the case for the hydroxyl radical, as the name says.  suggests to put the dot next to "the atom with the highest spin density". AFAIK, the everyday use in atmospheric chemistry goes for just "OH", made more correct by conversion to "•OH". However,  on page 1373 spells it out "HO•". Nowhere have I ever seen the here used "•HO", which is in my opinion not only wrong because of the superscript but also the indicated location of the unpaired electron. This should definitely be fixed! Florian.rubach (talk) 13:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  OH- and HO- 

message: If "s" in "approx. 10−9 s" means "seconds" the article should say "seconds."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdnctx (talk • contribs) 01:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: s is a standard and internationally accepted abbreviation for seconds in science.96.54.32.44 (talk) 17:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  If "s" in "approx. 10−9 s" means "seconds" the article should say "seconds" 

message: In the section on Chemistry of the molecule OH, subsection OH destruction pathways
::"so the abundance of •OH depends mainly on the H3+ abundance."
:There's no mention of H3+ in any of the production or destruction equations, but H3O+ does appear in the production equations.  Is this a typo for H3O+, or how is H3+ actually involved in the chemistry? 96.54.32.44 (talk) 17:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  H<sub>3</sub><sup>+</sup> or H<sub>3</sub>O<sup>+</sup> 

message: Since there is a whole section, Astronomical importance, perhaps list the four absorption lines?
*1612.23101 MHz (F'=1←F"=2)
*1665.40184 MHz (F'=1←F"=1)
*1667.35903 MHz (F'=2←F"=2)
*1720.52990 MHz (F'=2←F"=1)
Source with sources: https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/inchi?ID=C3352576&Mask=1000
--Mortense (talk) 09:39, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  List the absorption lines? 

message: While, were there a dense, compacted, enough a ozone layer, to claim that ozone has a similar effect to greenhouse gases that do form layers in a more flat sense of reflection, of which without, ozone should not be said to have the same effect upon heat coming up, rather than UV coming in,.. since heat is ADJACENTLY absorbed, if when IR scatters in 360-degrees directions, meaning that scattering from THINLY spread gases that reflect heat,.. diverts, delays, heat in terms of WHERE it is absorbed/converts into thermoD energy...
and
While, it is true to say that IF ozone were, in a coherent, dense, compacted layer, that it's DOWNWARD reflection of IR,
would cause a clear, text-book greenhouse effect,..
It is incorrect to assume that ozone's SMALL, low, presence in-amongst air in the stratosphere, is any kind of real layer, compared to the human-label, which correctly describes what is perhaps better described as a REGION... of other overlapping regions, not a 'layer', of what one might imagine.
If that word had simply been used the first place, one would when learning of it, have no-choice but to understand how when UV keeps reflecting, and that CONTINUED SCATTERING, leads to partial/substantial 180degrees 'back-out-into-space' preventions,.. 
but DOES NOT ABSORB into ADJACENT air as readily / substantially as IR does in adjacent air,..
(other constituents OF air, adjacent-to any greenhouse gas/IR-reflective particle) 
It is also incorrect, or perhaps OMISSIVE,.. to point out that once IR has made it through the lower layers, and is then into the density X heat-loss-areas of the upper-layers, that the minor additional scattering because of ozone's low presence,..
------------------
... DOES NOT PREVENT,..
-----------------
... other particles from heated and cooled, compared to what would happen ... IF ... a dense, 'solid', condensed layer, reflected IR  'back-down-into-the-earth'  way-before it got anywhere near, the upper-cooling-layers.
It does cause a delay, but  'too-late'  you can say,.. which particles heat & then cool, effectively doesn't matter,..
It's OWN particles do not heat directly, but since the overall amount of heat from ANY particle absorbing IR, would not be any higher,.. or at what-EXACT height, which is impossible to predict,.. exactly how much, would / would not've absorbed,.. is laughably far too open-world an experiment, to be able to replicate or estimate in the lab, compared to what conclusions of sequences of interactions, one can predict with particle-interaction tests,..
...that while,.. the page points out multiple times, that it has effects in dense concentrations near the surface,..
...it is a little accidentally misleading, to not mention ozone's low density in the stratosphere, in terms of whether or not it has a blocking, 180-degree 'turnaound' effect, AT THAT low density, which it does not.
density is mentioned, but the EFFECT of that low density, in terms of the distinct difference between it at near-surface concentrations, that are MORE like layers, and it's regional... presence in the stratosphere,.. is not clear  -  one might conclude too quickly, that it actually has the same kind of effect, as, other greenhouse gases, that coalesce, at balance-point atmospheric HEIGHTS,.. in pockets, or clouds, however you want to describe them, in terms of large, coherent, actually blocking, BARRIERs, like functions, of things like clouds of CO2.
----------------
the density is too low, that = no-'clouds'  ... in other words.  it does near the surface, but that difference is all i'm suggesting be added  -  it does down here, it doesn't up there  (act like a greenhouse gas cloud/layer), and has more like a presence-region, not a 'layer'.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.183.144.231 (talk) 17:17, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  misleading general statement, about ozone as a greenhouse gas?