Flow reactor studies of methyl radical oxidation reactions in methane‐perturbed moist carbon monoxide oxidation at high pressure with model sensitivity analysis

New rate constant determinations for the reactions CH₃ + HO₂ → CH₃O + OH (1) CH₃ + HO₂ → CH₄ + O₂ (2) CH₃ + O₂ → CH₂O + OH (3) were made at 1000 K by fitting species profiles from high‐pressure flow reactor experiments on moist CO oxidation perturbed with methane. These reactions are important steps in the intermediate‐temperature burnout of hydrocarbon pollutants, especially at super‐atmospheric pressure. The experiments used in the fit were selected to minimize the uncertainty in the determinations. These uncertainties were estimated using model sensitivity coefficients, derived for time‐shifted flow reactor experiments, along with literature uncertainties for the unfitted rate constants. The experimental optimization procedure significantly reduced the uncertainties in each of these rate constants over the current literature values. The new rate constants and their uncertainties were determined to be, at 1000 K: k₁ = 1.48(10)¹³ cm³ mol⁻¹ s⁻¹ (UF = 2.24) k₂ = 3.16(10)¹² cm³ mol⁻¹ s⁻¹ (UF = 2.89) k₃ = 2.36(10)⁸ cm³ mol⁻¹ s⁻¹ (UF = 4.23) There are no direct and few indirect measurements of reactions ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) in the literature. There are few measurements of reaction ( 3 ) near 1000 K. These results therefore represent an important refinement to radical oxidation chemistry of significance to methane and higher alkane oxidation. The model sensitivity analysis used in the experimental design was also used to characterize the mechanistic dependence of the new rate constant values. Linear sensitivities of the fitted rate constants to the unfitted rate constants were given. The sensitivity analysis was used to show that the determinations above are primarily dependent on the rate constants chosen for the reactions CH₃ + CH₃ + M → C₂H₆ + M and CH₂O + HO₂ → HCO + H₂O₂. Uncertainties in the rate constants of these two reactions are the primary contributors to the uncertainty factors given above. Further reductions in the uncertainties of these kinetics would lead to significant reductions in the uncertainties in our determinations of k₁, k₂, and k₃. © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Int J Chem Kinet 33: 75–100, 2001