Comment on 'Ionospheric evidence of hot oxygen in the upper atmosphere of Venus'

The conclusion of Mahajan et al. (1992) that 'the existence of O(+) as dominant at (Venusian) ionopause altitudes in excess of 500-1000 km can only be explained if atomic oxygen is the major neutral constituent' is argued to be incorrect. It is suggested that at a transition region of about 200 km, thermal atomic oxygen is the dominant neutral gas, and hot oxygen is a minor species; thus the O(+) to H(+) ratio at high altitudes is not an indicator of the presence of hot oxygen at these altitudes. A 1D model for H(+) and O(+) appropriate for the dayside ionosphere of Venus shows that within hot atomic oxygen density values from 1000 to 10 exp 6/ cu cm at 150 km, the calculated H(+) and O(+) densities did not change in any meaningful way, because the hot oxygen population remained a minor neutral constituent below 200 km, which is the approximate height of the transition between chemical and diffusive equilibrium conditions for the ions.