4.6 Article

First-Principles Determination of CO Adsorption and Desorption on Pt(111) in the Free Energy Landscape

Journal

JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY C
Volume 122, Issue 37, Pages 21478-21483

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpcc.8b06782

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Queen's University of Belfast
  2. China Scholarship Council
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21333003, 21622305]
  4. Young Elite Scientist Sponsorship Program by CAST [YESS20150131]
  5. Shanghai Municipal Education Commission
  6. Shanghai Education Development Foundation [17SG30]
  7. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [WJ616007]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Traditionally, catalytic processes are calculated using the total energy approach from density functional theory (DFT), and the method to determine the barriers of the adsorption/desorption from DFT calculations is thus still not available. In this work, we choose CO adsorption/desorption on Pt(111) as a model for two reasons. First, it is often a rate-limiting step in many catalytic reactions. Second, the disagreement between the experiment and DFT calculations on the CO adsorption sites of Pt(111) has been known as the CO puzzle in the literature, and to further understand the puzzle is desirable. We introduce a molecular dynamics method within the framework of DFT, allowing us to calculate the free energy barriers of adsorption/desorption without experimental inputs. Our results show that the top site is more preferred for CO adsorption in terms of free energy, which agree with experimental work, but in contrast to the traditional DFT total energy calculations. A delocalized nature of CO chemisorption on the hollow site is found, and the key reason for the discrepancy between the free energy simulations and the total energy calculations is identified, which may have some profound implications in total energy calculations in general.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available