Skip to main content

Note on consistency between Kalogerakis–Sharma Mechanism (KSM) and two-step mechanism of atmospheric band emission (762 nm)


For more than 30 years, a two-step mechanism was used to explain observed Atmospheric band emission (762 nm) in mesopause region. A new mechanism, which leads to the formation of electronically excited molecular oxygen that gives this emission, was proposed recently. We show, based on an analytical solution, that the fit-functions for Atmospheric band volume emission in the case of the two-step mechanism and the new Kalogerakis–Sharma Mechanism (KSM) have analogous expression. This derivation solves the problem of consistency between the well-known two-step mechanism and the newly proposed KSM.


Airglow phenomena, and particularly atmospheric band emission (762 nm), attract interest, because they help infer knowledge about dynamical variabilities [e.g. tides, planetary waves (PWs), gravity waves (GWs)], temperature, and chemical distributions in the mesopause region. Atmospheric band emission (762 nm) is produced by the excited state of molecular oxygen \({\text{O}}_{2} \left( {b^{1} {\Sigma }_{g}^{ + } ,v = 0} \right)\) (hereafter, v is the vibrational number). It was used to investigate parameters of GWs (e.g. Noxon 1978; Zhang et al. 1993; Leko et al. 2002). PWs were studied by Lopez-Gonzalez et al. (2009). The tides have been detected, for example, by Lopez-Gonzalez et al. (2005), Marsh et al. (1999). Sheese et al. (2010, 2011) utilised this emission to infer the temperature in the mesopause region.

Distributions of minor chemical constituents (ozone, atomic oxygen) were measured in a number of works (e.g. Mlynczak et al. 2001; Hedin et al. 2009, and references therein). The same excited state of molecular oxygen \({\text{O}}_{2} \left( {b^{1} {\Sigma }_{g}^{ + } } \right)\) produces emission at 865 nm, which can be measured from the ground, and which has been utilised to study solar cycle effects (e.g. Pertsev and Perminov 2008), trends (e.g. Dalin et al. 2020, and references therein), and GWs (Aushev et al. 2000). This emission was utilised to investigate variability due to sudden stratospheric warming (Shepherd et al. 2010). The processes of energy transfer between different excited states of molecules and atoms, as well as the parameters of transitions, should be well studied for three main reasons: for correct interpretation of the results of measurements, for correct assessment thermalisation of upcoming radiation (that is significant for dynamics), and because the chemical properties of electronically excited states of atoms and molecules are different from their ground states (distributions of excited states are important for mesopause chemistry).

For over 30 years, a two-step (Barth-like) mechanism (Greer et al. 1981; Witt et al. 1984; McDade et al. 1986) was considered as the main source of \({\text{O}}_{2} \left( {b^{1} {\Sigma }_{g}^{ + } ,v = 0} \right)\) population at nighttime conditions. It assumes production \({\text{O}}_{2} \left( {b^{1} {\Sigma }_{g}^{ + } ,v = 0} \right)\) from the recombination of atomic oxygen via unknown precursor. The population \({\text{O}}_{2} \left( {b^{1} {\Sigma }_{g}^{ + } ,v = 0} \right)\) at daytime occurs by quenching of O(1D), which is the result of ozone and molecular oxygen dissociation. (e.g. Yankovsky and Vorobeva 2020). It was assumed until 2015 that there are no essential sources of O(1D) in the mesopause during night (the minor sources: \({\text{O}}(^{1} {\text{S}}) \to {\text{O}}(^{1} {\text{D}}) + {\text{h}}\nu \left( {557.7\;{\text{nm}}} \right)\) and \({\text{O}}_{2}^{ + } + e \to {\text{O}}(^{1} {\text{D}}) + {\text{O}}\) are almost negligible). Recently, a new source of O(1D) population \(\left( {{\text{O}} + {\text{OH}}_{v \ge 5} \to {\text{O}}(^{1} {\text{D}}) + {\text{OH}}_{{0 \le v^{^{\prime}} \le v - 5}} } \right)\) was proposed (Sharma et al. 2015; Kalogerakis et al. 2016) as a hypothesis to explain the difference between experiment (Kalogerakis et al. 2011) and theory (e.g. Caridade et al. 2013, and references therein). It was successfully used to explain the deviations between numerical simulations and measurements of carbon dioxide 4.3 μm emission (Panka et al. 2017). Hence now, this mechanism is a well-established hypothesis. If this hypothesis is true, a new source for the production of \({\text{O}}_{2} \left( {b^{1} {\Sigma }_{g}^{ + } ,v = 0} \right)\) via O(1D) takes place in the mesopause region at night. In the present, there are different opinions about the canal \({\text{O}} + {\text{OH}}_{v = 9} \to {\text{O}}(^{1} {\text{D}}) + {\text{OH}}_{v^{\prime} = 4}\). A number of authors takes this branch in account; on the other hand, there is an opinion that this canal does not exist (e.g. Yankovsky, private communication; Khomich et al. 2008). This still opened question does not influence all discussion below. Hence, in our manuscript, the original nomenclature (Sharma et al. 2015), which takes into an account this canal, is used.

Recently, by analysis of Energy Transfer in the Oxygen Nightglow (ETON 2) and Non-Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium (NLTE 2) rocket measurements, Kalogerakis (2019) inferred that the 762 nm emission via this new mechanism is over half of the total Atmospheric band emission near the peak, and may even exceed the emission from traditional source (two-step mechanism). Note, this conclusion, as well as discussion below, is valid and for the emission 865 nm which have as a source the same excited state of molecular oxygen.

Hence, a question arises regarding how is it possible that the fit-function, which was derived based on the assumption about the dominance of the two-step mechanism with empirically derived fitting coefficients (McDade et al. 1986; Grygalashvyly et al. 2019), has been used more than 30 years to infer atomic oxygen from observed Atmospheric band emission (e.g. Hedin et al. 2009), or vice versa, for simulations of emission from atomic oxygen (e.g. Ward 1999) with well-confirmed results, if an additional strong mechanism exists.

In this short note, we show that in the case of Kalogerakis–Sharma Mechanism (KSM), the analogous fit-function can be derived. The analytical derivation is shown in the next section. The conclusions are summarised in the last section.

Analytical derivation

Assuming the two-step mechanism as dominant for \({\text{O}}_{2} \left( {b^{1} {\Sigma }_{g}^{ + } ,v = 0} \right)\) population (hereafter, v is the vibrational number for all vibrationally excited molecules), McDade et al. (1986) derive fit-function:

$${\text{C}}^{{{\text{O}}_{2} }} \left[ {{\text{O}}_{2} } \right] + {\text{C}}^{{\text{O}}} \left[ {\text{O}} \right] = \frac{{A_{762} a_{5} \left[ {\text{O}} \right]^{2} \left[ {{\text{O}}_{2} } \right]\left[ {\text{M}} \right]}}{{V_{762} \left( {A_{{{\text{O}}_{2} \left( {b1} \right)\_0}} + b_{{{\text{O}}_{2} }} \left[ {{\text{O}}_{2} } \right] + b_{{{\text{N}}_{2} }} \left[ {{\text{N}}_{2} } \right] + b_{{\text{O}}} \left[ {\text{O}} \right]} \right)}},$$

where \({a}_{5}\) is the reaction rate for atomic oxygen recombination; \({A}_{762}\) is Einstein coefficient for Atmospheric band (762 nm) emission, \({V}_{762}\) is corresponding volume emission; \({A}_{{\text{O}}_{2}(b1)\_0}\) is Einstein coefficient for total spontaneous emission of \({\text{O}}_{2} \left( {b^{1} \sum\nolimits_{g}^{ + } {,v} = 0} \right);b_{{{\text{O}}_{2} }} ,b_{{{\text{N}}_{2} }} ,b_{{\text{O}}}\) are the quenching rates of \({\text{O}}_{2} \left( {b^{1} {\Sigma }_{g}^{ + } ,v = 0} \right)\) with molecular oxygen, molecular nitrogen and atomic oxygen, respectively; and \({\text{C}}^{{\text{O}}_{2}}\), \({\text{C}}^{\text{O}}\) are the empirical fitting coefficients that were calculated from the ETON 2 rocket experiment. For more comfortable reading, we collect all nomenclature of reactions used in the manuscript in Table 1.

Table 1 List of reactions, nomenclature of reaction rates, branching ratios, quenching coefficients, spontaneous emission coefficients used in the paper

To show that in the case of KSM can be derived by analogous expression, we start from the expression for excited hydroxyl. Excited hydroxyl is in photochemical equilibrium in the mesopause region at night. Under this condition, its concentration is expressed as the ratio of productions to losses. The ozone is in the photochemical equilibrium in the vicinity of the excited hydroxyl layer and above at nighttime conditions (Belikovich et al. 2018; Kulikov et al. 2018, 2019). We use the expression for ozone balance at night \(a_{2} \left[ {\text{O}} \right]\left[ {{\text{O}}_{2} } \right]\left[ {\text{M}} \right] = a_{1} \left[ {{\text{O}}_{3} } \right]\left[ {\text{H}} \right] + a_{3} \left[ {\text{O}} \right]\left[ {{\text{O}}_{3} } \right]\), where \({a}_{1}, {a}_{2}, {a}_{3}\) are the coefficients for corresponding reactions (see Table 1). The reaction of ozone with atomic oxygen is relatively slow and can be omitted (Smith et al. 2008). Then, we substitute the reduced ozone balance equation (\(a_{2} \left[ {\text{O}} \right]\left[ {{\text{O}}_{2} } \right]\left[ {\text{M}} \right] = a_{1} \left[ {{\text{O}}_{3} } \right]\left[ {\text{H}} \right]\)) into the excited hydroxyl balance equation (first term in the numerator). Hence, we can write an equation where the concentration of excited hydroxyl is represented as a function of temperature (because of temperature-dependent reaction rates) and atomic oxygen concentration:

$$\left[ {{\text{OH}}_{v = 9, \ldots ,5} } \right] = \frac{{\left( {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {\eta_{v} a_{2} \left[ {\text{O}} \right]\left[ {{\text{O}}_{2} } \right]\left[ {\text{M}} \right] + \sum\nolimits_{{v^{\prime} = v + 1}}^{9} {P_{v^{\prime}v} \left[ {{\text{OH}}_{{v^{\prime}}} } \right]\left[ {\text{O}} \right]} + \sum\nolimits_{{v^{\prime} = v + 1}}^{9} {S_{v^{\prime}v} \left[ {{\text{OH}}_{{v^{\prime}}} } \right]\left[ {{\text{N}}_{2} } \right]} + } \\ { + \sum\nolimits_{{v^{\prime} = v + 1}}^{9} {Q_{v^{\prime}v} \left[ {{\text{OH}}_{{v^{\prime}}} } \right]\left[ {{\text{O}}_{2} } \right]} + \sum\nolimits_{{v^{\prime} = v + 1}}^{9} {E_{{v^{\prime}v}} \left[ {{\text{OH}}_{{v^{\prime}}} } \right]} } \\ \end{array} } \right)}}{{\left( {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {a_{4} \left( v \right)\left[ {\text{O}} \right] + \sum\nolimits_{{v^{\prime\prime} = 0}}^{v - 1} {P_{vv^{\prime\prime}} \left[ {\text{O}} \right]} + \sum\nolimits_{{v^{\prime\prime} = 0}}^{v - 1} {S_{vv^{\prime\prime}} \left[ {{\text{N}}_{2} } \right]} + } \\ { + \sum\nolimits_{{v^{\prime\prime} = 0}}^{v - 1} {Q_{vv^{\prime\prime}} \left[ {{\text{O}}_{2} } \right]} + \sum\nolimits_{{v^{\prime\prime} = 0}}^{v - 1} {E_{{vv^{\prime\prime}}} } + \psi_{v} a_{KSM} \left[ {\text{O}} \right]} \\ \end{array} } \right)}}, \left( {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {v < v^{\prime}} \\ {v^{\prime\prime} < v} \\ \end{array} } \right).$$

Here, \({\eta }_{v}\) are the branching ratios for the reaction of atomic hydrogen with ozone; \({a}_{2}, {a}_{4}\) are the reaction rates for R2 and R4, respectively; \(Q_{v^{\prime}v} , P_{v^{\prime}v} , S_{v^{\prime}v}\) are the quenching coefficients (where lower indexes denote corresponding transitions) for deactivation of excited hydroxyl by molecular oxygen, atomic oxygen, and molecular nitrogen, respectively; \(E_{v^{\prime}v}\) are the spontaneous emission coefficients; \({a}_{\text{KSM}}\) is the reaction rate for KSM, and \({\psi }_{v}\) are the branching ratios for KSM. Note, in the denominator of Eq. (2), we take into an account not only quenching processes and spontaneous emission, but, additionally, chemical removing (following by terminology of e.g. Varandas (2004), Caridade et al. (2013), reactive quenching), and removing by KSM. Hence, we separate three different processes: non-reactive quenching (R16), reactive quenching (R4), and Kalogerakis–Sharma process (R6). Taking into account that the most effective losses of excited hydroxyl occur by quenching with molecular oxygen, we can write simplified expressions for excited hydroxyl concentration (Grygalashvyly, 2015, eq. 14):

$$\left[ {{\text{OH}}_{v} } \right] = \mu_{v} a_{2} \left[ {\text{O}} \right]\left[ {\text{M}} \right],$$

where \({\mu }_{v}\) are the coefficients which represent the arithmetic combination of branching ratios, \({\eta }_{v}\) and quenching coefficients \(Q_{v^{\prime}v}\) (collected in Appendix). Similar approach was used in a number of papers and is repeated here just for clarity (e.g. Mlynczak et al. 2014; Grygalashvyly et al. 2014; Grygalashvyly2015).

KSM populates O(1D) from vibrationally excited hydroxyl with \(v = 5, \ldots ,9\) (Sharma et al. 2015; Kalogerakis et al. 2016; Panka et al. 2017; Kalogerakis 2019). [O(1D)] due to KSM using photochemical equilibrium (the life time is less than 1 s because of strong quenching; e.g. Slanger et al. (2017), Yankovsky and Manuilova (2018)) and can be written as follows:

$$\left[ {{\text{O}}(^{1} {\text{D}})} \right]_{{{\text{KSM}}}} = \frac{{\mathop \sum \nolimits_{v = 5}^{v = 9} \psi_{v} a_{{{\text{KSM}}}} \left[ {{\text{OH}}_{v} } \right]\left[ {\text{O}} \right]}}{{A_{{{\text{O}}\left( {1{\text{D}}} \right)}} + {\text{c}}_{{{\text{O}}_{2} }} \left[ {{\text{O}}_{2} } \right] + {\text{c}}_{{{\text{N}}_{2} }} \left[ {{\text{N}}_{2} } \right] + {\text{c}}_{{\text{O}}} \left[ {\text{O}} \right]}},$$

where \({A}_{\text{O}(1\text{D})}\) is the the total coefficient of O(1D) spontaneous emission, and \({\text{c}}_{{{\text{O}}_{2} }} ,{\text{c}}_{{{\text{N}}_{2} }} ,{\text{c}}_{{\text{O}}}\) are the quenching coefficients for deactivation of O(1D) by molecular oxygen, molecular nitrogen, and atomic oxygen, respectively.

Two lowest vibrational states of \({\text{O}}_{2}\left({b}^{1}{\Sigma }_{g}^{+}, v=\text{0,1}\right)\) are populated via quenching of O(1D) by molecular oxygen, with branching ratios \({\chi }_{0}\) and \({\chi }_{1}\), respectively. Then, \({\text{O}}_{2}\left({b}^{1}{\Sigma }_{g}^{+}, v=1\right)\) can be deactivated by quenching with O2, N2, and O into zero vibrational state, or it can be transformed into ground state via spontaneous emission (e.g. Pejakovic 2014; Yankovsky et al. 2016, 2019).

\({\text{O}}_{2}\left({b}^{1}{\Sigma }_{g}^{+}, v=0\right)\) is the result (at nighttime conditions) of deactivation of O(1D) by molecular oxygen and \({\text{O}}_{2}\left({b}^{1}{\Sigma }_{g}^{+}, v=1\right)\) by O2, N2, and O. Then, it is deactivated in processes of spontaneous emission and quenching.

The radiative lifetimes of \({\text{O}}_{2}\left({b}^{1}{\Sigma }_{g}^{+},v=\text{0,1}\right)\) are less than 12 s (e.g. Yankovsky et al. 2016, 2019 and references therein), hence, assuming photochemical equilibrium for both, we can express them as a ratio of production to the losses.

$$\left[ {{\text{O}}_{2} \left( {b^{1} {\Sigma }_{g}^{ + } ,v = 1} \right)} \right]_{{{\text{KSM}}}} = \frac{{\chi_{1} {\text{c}}_{{{\text{CO}}_{2} }} \left[ {{\text{O}}_{2} } \right]\left[ {{\text{O}}(^{1} {\text{D}})} \right]_{{{\text{KSM}}}} }}{{\left( {A_{{{\text{O}}_{2} \left( {b1} \right)\_1}} + d_{{{\text{O}}_{2} }} \left[ {{\text{O}}_{2} } \right] + d_{{{\text{N}}_{2} }} \left[ {{\text{N}}_{2} } \right] + d_{{\text{O}}} \left[ {\text{O}} \right]} \right)}},$$

where \(A_{{{\text{O}}_{2} \left( {b1} \right)\_1}}\) is the Einstein coefficient for total spontaneous emission of \({\text{O}}_{2}\left({b}^{1}{\Sigma }_{g}^{+},v=1\right)\); \({\chi }_{1}\) is branching ratio (see above); and \(d_{{{\text{O}}_{2} }} , d_{{{\text{N}}_{2} }} , d_{{\text{O}}}\) are the rates of quenching of \({\text{O}}_{2}\left({b}^{1}{\Sigma }_{g}^{+},v=1\right)\) by molecular oxygen, molecular nitrogen, and atomic oxygen, respectively.

$$\left[ {{\text{O}}_{2} \left( {b^{1} {\Sigma }_{g}^{ + } ,v = 0} \right)} \right]_{{{\text{KSM}}}} = \frac{{\chi_{0} {\text{c}}_{{{\text{O}}_{2} }} \left[ {{\text{O}}_{2} } \right]\left[ {{\text{O}}(^{1} {\text{D}})} \right]_{{{\text{KSM}}}} + \left[ {{\text{O}}_{2} \left( {b^{1} {\Sigma }_{g}^{ + } ,v = 1} \right)} \right]_{{{\text{KSM}}}} \left( {d_{{{\text{O}}_{2} }} \left[ {{\text{O}}_{2} } \right] + d_{{{\text{N}}_{2} }} \left[ {{\text{N}}_{2} } \right] + d_{{\text{O}}} \left[ {\text{O}} \right]} \right) }}{{\left( {A_{{{\text{O}}_{2} \left( {b1} \right)\_0}} + b_{{{\text{O}}_{2} }} \left[ {{\text{O}}_{2} } \right] + b_{{{\text{N}}_{2} }} \left[ {{\text{N}}_{2} } \right] + b_{{\text{O}}} \left[ {\text{O}} \right]} \right)}},$$

where \({\chi }_{0}\) is branching ratio (see above); \(b_{{{\text{O}}_{2} }} , b_{{{\text{N}}_{2} }} , b_{{\text{O}}}\) are the quenching rates of \({\text{O}}_{2}\left({b}^{1}{\Sigma }_{g}^{+},v=0\right)\) with molecular oxygen, molecular nitrogen and atomic oxygen, respectively.

Next, we substitute (5) into (6). The spontaneous emission coefficient \(A_{{{\text{O}}_{2} \left( {b_{1} } \right)\_1}}\) is much smaller than other terms in the denominator of (5) (Pejakovic et al. 2005a,b). Hence, we can write

$$\left[ {{\text{O}}_{2} \left( {b^{1} {\Sigma }_{g}^{ + } ,v = 0} \right)} \right]_{{{\text{KSM}}}} = \frac{{\chi {\text{c}}_{{{\text{O}}_{2} }} \left[ {{\text{O}}_{2} } \right]\left[ {{\text{O}}(^{1} {\text{D}})} \right]_{{{\text{KSM}}}} }}{{\left( {A_{{{\text{O}}_{2} \left( {b1} \right)\_0}} + b_{{{\text{O}}_{2} }} \left[ {{\text{O}}_{2} } \right] + b_{{{\text{N}}_{2} }} \left[ {{\text{N}}_{2} } \right] + b_{{\text{O}}} \left[ {\text{O}} \right]} \right)}},$$

where \(\chi ={\chi }_{0}+{\chi }_{1}\) is the total branching ratio for \({\text{O}}_{2}\left({b}^{1}{\Sigma }_{g}^{+}, v=\text{0,1}\right)\) population.

The KSM which produces O(1D), and consecutively \({\text{O}}_{2}\left({b}^{1}{\Sigma }_{g}^{+}, v=0\right),\) is responsible for part of Atmospheric band emission (762 nm):

$$V_{{{\text{KSM}}}} = A_{762} \left[ {{\text{O}}_{2} \left( {b^{1} {\Sigma }_{g}^{ + } ,v = 0} \right)} \right]_{{{\text{KSM}}}} .$$

Substituting (3) into (4), then (4) into (7), and finally (7) into (8), we obtain:

$$V_{{{\text{KSM}}}} = \frac{{A_{762} \chi {\text{c}}_{{{\text{O}}_{2} }} a_{{{\text{KSM}}}} a_{2} \left[ {\text{O}} \right]^{2} \left[ {{\text{O}}_{2} } \right]\left[ {\text{M}} \right]\mathop \sum \nolimits_{v = 5}^{v = 9} \psi_{v} \mu_{v} }}{{\left( {A_{{{\text{O}}_{2} \left( {b1} \right)\_0}} + b_{{{\text{O}}_{2} }} \left[ {{\text{O}}_{2} } \right] + b_{{{\text{N}}_{2} }} \left[ {{\text{N}}_{2} } \right] + b_{{\text{O}}} \left[ {\text{O}} \right]} \right)\left( {A_{{{\text{O}}\left( {1{\text{D}}} \right)}} + {\text{c}}_{{{\text{O}}_{2} }} \left[ {{\text{O}}_{2} } \right] + {\text{c}}_{{{\text{N}}_{2} }} \left[ {{\text{N}}_{2} } \right] + {\text{c}}_{{\text{O}}} \left[ {\text{O}} \right]} \right)}}.$$

Omitting emissive term \({A}_{\text{O}(1\text{D})}\) as non-effective loss and reorganising (9), we obtain

$${\text{C}}^{{{\text{O}}_{2} }} \left[ {{\text{O}}_{2} } \right] + {\text{C}}^{{\text{O}}} \left[ {\text{O}} \right] = \frac{{A_{762} a_{5} \left[ {\text{O}} \right]^{2} \left[ {\text{M}} \right]\left[ {{\text{O}}_{2} } \right]}}{{V_{{{\text{KSM}}}} \left( {A_{{{\text{O}}_{2} \left( {b1} \right)\_0}} + b_{{{\text{O}}_{2} }} \left[ {{\text{O}}_{2} } \right] + b_{{{\text{N}}_{2} }} \left[ {{\text{N}}_{2} } \right] + {\text{b}}_{{\text{O}}} \left[ {\text{O}} \right]} \right)}},$$

where \({\text{C}}^{{{\text{O}}_{2} }} = \frac{{a_{5} }}{{\chi a_{2} a_{{{\text{KSM}}}} \mathop \sum \nolimits_{v = 5}^{v = 9} \psi_{v} \mu_{v} }}\left( {1 + \frac{{{\text{c}}_{{{\text{N}}_{2} }} \left[ {{\text{N}}_{2} } \right]}}{{{\text{c}}_{{{\text{O}}_{2} }} \left[ {{\text{O}}_{2} } \right]}}} \right)\) and \({\text{C}}^{{\text{O}}} = \frac{{{\text{c}}_{{\text{O}}} a_{5} }}{{\chi a_{2} a_{{{\text{KSM}}}} {\text{c}}_{{{\text{O}}_{2} }} \mathop \sum \nolimits_{v = 5}^{v = 9} \psi_{v} \mu_{v} }}\).

Hence, the case of leading KSM gives the same expression for fit-function.


The fit-functions for KSM and for two-step mechanism have analogous analytical expressions. This explains why a long time of using this expression with empirically derived fitting coefficients but without detailed knowledge on acting mechanisms gives approximately correct values of atomic oxygen and Atmospheric band volume emissions. In the frame of our analytical approach and currently available rocket experiments, we do not have the possibility to make any solid conclusions about the balance between two mechanisms. To highlight this problem, new simultaneous observations of the Atmospheric band emission, excited hydroxyl emissions, atomic oxygen and temperature are necessary. Additionally, laboratory investigations to study the branching ratios and reaction rate for KSM are desirable.

Availability of data and materials

No data are presented—the work is theory.



Kalogerakis–Sharma Mechanism


Planetary waves


Gravity waves


Energy Transfer in the Oxygen Nightglow


Non-Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium


  1. Aushev VM, Pogoreltsev AI, Vodyannikov VV, Wiens RH, Shepherd GG (2000) Results of the airglow and temperature observations by MORTI at the Almaty site (43.05 N, 76.97 E). Phys Chem Earth 25(5–6):409–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Belikovich MV, Kulikov MYu, Grygalashvyly M, Sonnemann GR, Ermakova TS, Nechaev AA, Feigin AM (2018) Ozone chemical equilibrium in the extended mesopause under the nighttime conditions. Adv Space Res 61:426–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Caridade PJSB, Horta J-ZJ, Varandas AJC (2013) Implications of the O + OH reaction in hydroxyl nightglow modeling. Atmos Chem Phys 13:1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Dalin P, Perminov V, Pertsev N, Romejko V (2020) Updated long-term trends in mesopause temperature, airglow emissions, and noctilucent clouds. J Geophys Res 125:e2019JD030814.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Greer RGH, Llewellyn EJ, Solheim BH, Witt G (1981) The excitation of O2b1Σg+ in the nightglow. Planet Space Sci 29(4):383–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Grygalashvyly M (2015) Several notes on the OH*-layer. Ann Geophys 33:923–930.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Grygalashvyly M, Sonnemann GR, Lübken F-J, Hartogh P, Berger U (2014) Hydroxyl layer: Mean state and trends at midlatitudes. J Geophys Res 119:12391–12419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Grygalashvyly M, Eberhart M, Hedin J, Strelnikov B, Lübken F-J, Rapp M, Löhle S, Fasoulas S, Khaplanov M, Gumbel J, Vorobeva E (2019) Atmospheric band fitting coefficients derived from a self-consistent rocket-borne experiment. Atmos Chem Phys 19:1207–1220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hedin J, Gumbel J, Stegman J, Witt G (2009) Use of O2 airglow for calibrating direct atomic oxygen measurements from sounding rockets. Atmos Meas Tech 2:801–812.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Kalogerakis KS (2019) A previously unrecognized source of the O2 Atmospheric band emission in Earth’s nightglow. Sci Adv 5:eaau9255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kalogerakis KS, Smith GP, Copeland RA (2011) Collisional removal of OH(X2Π, v = 9) by O, O2, O3, N2, and CO2. J Geophys Res 116:D20307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Kalogerakis KS, Matsiev D, Sharma RD, Wintersteiner PP (2016) Resolving the mesospheric nighttime 4.3 μm emission puzzle: laboratory demonstration of new mechanism for OH(υ) relaxation. Geophys Res Lett 43:8835–8843.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Khomich VY, Semenov AI, Shefov NN (2008) Airglow as an indicator of upper atmospheric structure and dynamics. Springer, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Kulikov MY, Belikovich MV, Grygalashvyly M, Sonnemann GR, Ermakova TS, Nechaev AA, Feigin AM (2018) Nighttime ozone chemical equilibrium in the mesopause region. J Geophys Res 123:3228–3242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kulikov MY, Nechaev AA, Belikovich MV, Vorobeva EV, Grygalashvyly M, Sonnemann GR, Feigin AM (2019) Boundary of Nighttime Ozone Chemical Equilibrium In The Mesopause Region From SABER data: implications for derivation of atomic oxygen and atomic hydrogen. Gepohys Res Lett 46:997–1004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Leko JJ, Hickey MP, Richards PG (2002) Comparison of simulated gravity wave-driven mesospheric airglow fluctuations observed from the ground and space. J Atmos Solar-Terr Phys 64:397–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Lopez-Gonzalez MJ, Rodríguez E, Shepherd GG, Sargoytchev S, Shepherd MG, Aushev VM, Brown S, García-Comas M, Wiens RH (2005) Tidal variations of O2 Atmospheric and OH(6–2) airglow and temperature at mid-latitudes from SATI observations. Ann Geophys 23:3579–3590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Lopez-Gonzalez MJ, Rodríguez E, García-Comas M, Costa V, Shepherd MG, Shepherd GG, Aushev VM, Sargoytchev S (2009) Climatology of planetary wave type oscillations with periods of 2–20 days derived from O2 atmospheric and OH(6–2) airglow observations at mid-latitude with SATI. Ann Geophys 27:3645–3662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Marsh DR, Skinner WR, Yudin VA (1999) Tidal influences on O2 atmospheric band dayglow: HRDI observations vs. model simulations. J Geophys Res 26(10):1369–1372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. McDade IC, Murtagh DP, Greer RGH, Dickinson PHG, Witt G, Stegman J, Llewellyn EJ, Thomas L, Jenkins DB (1986) ETON 2: Quenching parameters for the proposed precursors of O2(b1Σg+) and O(1S) in the terrestrial nightglow. Planet Space Sci 34:789–800.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Mlynczak MG, Morgan F, Yee J-H, Espy P, Murtagh D, Marshall B, Schmidlin F (2001) Simultaneous measurements of the O2(1∆) and O2(1Σ) airglows and ozone in the daytime mesosphere. Geophys Res Lett 28:999–1002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Mlynczak MG, Hunt LA, Marshall BT, Mertens CJ, Marsh DR, Smith AK, Russell JM, Siskind DE, Gordley LL (2014) Atomic hydrogen in the mesopause region derived from SABER: Algorithm theoretical basis, measurement uncertainty, and results. J Geophys Res 119:3516–3526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Noxon JF (1978) Effect of internal gravity waves upon night airglow temperatures. Geophys Res Lett 5:25–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Panka PA, Kutepov AA, Kalogerakis KS, Janches D, Russell JM, Rezac L, Feofilov AG, Mlynczak MG, Yiğit E (2017) Resolving the mesospheric nighttime 4.3 µm emission puzzle: comparison of the CO2(ν3) and OH(ν) emission models. Atmos Chem Phys 17:9751–9760.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Pejaković DA, Wouters ER, Phillips KE, Slanger TG, Copeland RA, Kalogerakis KS (2005a) Collisional removal of O2b1Σg+, v=1 by O2 at thermospheric temperatures. J Geophys Res 110:A03308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Pejaković DA, Copeland RA, Slanger TG, Kalogerakis KS (2005b) Collisional removal of O2bg+, v=1 by O(3P). Chem Phys Lett 403:372–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Pejaković DA, Copeland RA, Slanger TG, Kalogerakis KS (2014) O2b1Σg+, v=0,1 relative yields in O(1D) + O2 energy transfer. J Chem Phys 141:024303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Pertsev N, Perminov V (2008) Response of the mesopause airglow to solar activity inferred from measurements at Zvenigorod, Russia. Ann Geophys 26:1049–1056.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Sharma RD, Wintersteiner PP, Kalogerakis KS (2015) A new mechanism for OH vibrational relaxation leading to enhanced CO2 emissions in the nocturnal atmosphere. Geophys Res Lett 42:4639–4647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Sheese PE, Llewellyn EJ, Gattinger RL, Bourassa AE, Degenstein DA, Lloyd ND, McDade IC (2010) Temperatures in the upper mesosphere and lower thermosphere from OSIRIS observations of O2 A-band emission spectra. Can J Phys 88:919–925.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Sheese PE, Llewellyn EJ, Gattinger RL, Bourassa AE, Degenstein DA, Lloyd ND, McDade IC (2011) Mesopause temperatures during the polar mesospheric cloud season. Geophys Res Lett 38:L11803.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Shepherd MG, Cho Y-M, Shepherd GG, Ward W, Drummond JR (2010) Mesospheric temperature and atomic oxygen response during the January 2009 major stratospheric warming. J Geophys Res 115:A07318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Slanger TG, Pejaković DA, Kostko O, Matsiev D, Kalogerakis KS (2017) Atmospheric dayglow diagnostics involving the O2(b-X) atmospheric band emission: global oxygen and temperature (GOAT) mapping. J Geophys Res 122:3640–3649.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Smith AK, Marsh DR, Russell JM III, Mlynczak MG, Martin-Torres FJ, Kyrölä E (2008) Satellite observations of high nighttime ozone at the equatorial mesopause. J Geophys Res 113:D17312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Varandas AJC (2004) Reactive and non-reactive vibrational quenching in O + OH collisions. Chem Phys Lett 396:182–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Ward WE (1999) A simple model of diurnal variations in the mesospheric oxygen nightglow. Geophys Res Lett 26(23):3565–3568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Witt G, Stegman J, Murtagh DP, McDade IC, Greer RGH, Dickinson PHG, Jenkins DB (1984) Collisional energy transfer and the excitation of O2b1Σg+ in the atmosphere. J Photochem 25:365–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Yankovsky VA, Martysenko KV, Manuilova RO, Feofilov AG (2016) Oxygen dayglow emissions as proxies for atomic oxygen and ozone in the mesosphere and lower thermosphere. J Mol Spectrosc 327:209–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Yankovsky VA, Manuilova RO (2018) Possibility of simultaneous [O3] and [CO2] altitude distribution retrievals from the daytime emissions of electronically-vibrationally excited molecular oxygen in the mesosphere. J Atmos Sol-Terr Phys 179:22–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Yankovsky V, Vorobeva E, Manuilova R (2019) New techniques for retrieving the [O(3P)], [O3] and [CO2] altitude profiles from dayglow oxygen emissions: uncertainty analysis by the Monte Carlo method. Adv Space Res 64:1948–1967.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Yankovsky V, Vorobeva E (2020) Model of daytime oxygen emissions in the mesopause region and above: a review and new results. Atmosphere 11:116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Zhang SP, Wiens RH, Shepherd GG (1993) Gravity waves from O2 nightglow during the AIDA ‘89 campaign II: numerical modeling of the emission rate/temperature ratio, η. J Atmos Terr Phys 55:377–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


Not applicable.


Not applicable.

Author information




The authors contributed equally to this work. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mykhaylo Grygalashvyly.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.



Coefficients \({\mu }_{v}\) for Eq. (3).

Here \(Q_{v} = \sum\nolimits_{v^{\prime} = 0}^{{v^{\prime} = v - 1}} {Q_{vv^{\prime}} }\) is the sum of quenching ratios for \({\text{OH}}_{v}\) by \({\text{O}}_{2}\) for transitions into all lower vibrational levels.

$$\mu_{9} = \frac{{n_{9} }}{{Q_{9} }},$$
$$\mu_{8} = \frac{{\eta_{8} }}{{Q_{8} }} + \frac{{\eta_{9} Q_{98} }}{{Q_{9} Q_{8} }},$$
$$\mu_{7} = \frac{{\eta_{7} }}{{Q_{7} }} + \frac{{\eta_{9} Q_{97} }}{{Q_{9} Q_{7} }} + \frac{{\eta_{8} Q_{87} }}{{Q_{8} Q_{7} }} + \frac{{\eta_{9} Q_{98} Q_{87} }}{{Q_{9} Q_{8} Q_{7} }},$$
$$\begin{gathered} \mu_{6} = \frac{{\eta_{6} }}{{Q_{6} }} + \frac{{\eta_{9} Q_{96} }}{{Q_{9} Q_{6} }} + \frac{{\eta_{8} Q_{86} }}{{Q_{8} Q_{6} }} + \frac{{\eta_{9} Q_{98} Q_{86} }}{{Q_{9} Q_{8} Q_{6} }} + \frac{{\eta_{7} Q_{76} }}{{Q_{7} Q_{6} }} + \frac{{\eta_{9} Q_{97} Q_{76} }}{{Q_{9} Q_{7} Q_{6} }} + \frac{{\eta_{8} Q_{87} Q_{76} }}{{Q_{8} Q_{7} Q_{6} }} \hfill \\ + \frac{{\eta_{9} Q_{98} Q_{87} Q_{76} }}{{Q_{9} Q_{8} Q_{7} Q_{6} }}, \hfill \\ \end{gathered}$$
$$\begin{gathered} \mu_{5} = \frac{{\eta_{5} }}{{Q_{5} }} + \frac{{\eta_{9} Q_{95} }}{{Q_{9} Q_{5} }} + \frac{{\eta_{8} Q_{85} }}{{Q_{8} Q_{5} }} + \frac{{\eta_{9} Q_{98} Q_{85} }}{{Q_{9} Q_{8} Q_{5} }} + \frac{{\eta_{7} Q_{75} }}{{Q_{7} Q_{5} }} + \frac{{\eta_{9} Q_{97} Q_{75} }}{{Q_{9} Q_{7} Q_{5} }} + \frac{{\eta_{8} Q_{87} Q_{75} }}{{Q_{8} Q_{7} Q_{5} }} + \frac{{\eta_{9} Q_{98} Q_{87} Q_{75} }}{{Q_{9} Q_{8} Q_{7} Q_{5} }} + \hfill \\ + \frac{{\eta_{6} Q_{65} }}{{Q_{6} Q_{5} }} + \frac{{\eta_{9} Q_{96} Q_{65} }}{{Q_{9} Q_{6} Q_{5} }} + \frac{{\eta_{8} Q_{86} Q_{65} }}{{Q_{8} Q_{6} Q_{5} }} + \frac{{\eta_{9} Q_{98} Q_{86} Q_{65} }}{{Q_{9} Q_{8} Q_{6} Q_{5} }} + \frac{{\eta_{7} Q_{76} Q_{65} }}{{Q_{7} Q_{6} Q_{5} }} + \frac{{\eta_{9} Q_{97} Q_{76} Q_{65} }}{{Q_{9} Q_{7} Q_{6} Q_{5} }} + \hfill \\ + \frac{{\eta_{8} Q_{87} Q_{76} Q_{65} }}{{Q_{8} Q_{7} Q_{6} Q_{5} }} + \frac{{\eta_{9} Q_{98} Q_{87} Q_{76} Q_{65} }}{{Q_{9} Q_{8} Q_{7} Q_{6} Q_{5} }}. \hfill \\ \end{gathered}$$

On the other hand, these coefficients can be represented by the simple recursive expression:

$$\mu_{\upsilon } = \frac{{\eta_{v} + \mathop \sum \nolimits_{{v^{\prime} = v + 1}}^{{v^{\prime} = 9}} \mu_{v^{\prime}} Q_{v^{\prime}v} }}{{\mathop \sum \nolimits_{{v^{\prime\prime} = 0}}^{{v^{\prime\prime} = v - 1}} Q_{vv^{\prime\prime}} }}, \left( {\eta_{v > 9} = 0} \right).$$

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Grygalashvyly, M., Sonnemann, G.R. Note on consistency between Kalogerakis–Sharma Mechanism (KSM) and two-step mechanism of atmospheric band emission (762 nm). Earth Planets Space 72, 187 (2020).

Download citation


  • Atmospheric band emission
  • Kalogerakis–Sharma Mechanism
  • Airglow
  • Two-step mechanism
  • Mesopause region