4.8 Article

Molecular-Level Insights into the Notorious CO Poisoning of Platinum Catalyst

期刊

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/anie.202200190

关键词

Activation; Adsorption; CO Poisoning; Electrons; Kinetics

资金

  1. Natural Science Foundation of China [21922803, 22178100, 92034301, 22008066, 21776077]
  2. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [BX20190116]
  3. Innovation Program of Shanghai Municipal Education Commission
  4. Program of Shanghai Academic/Technology Research Leader [21XD1421000]
  5. 111 Project of the Ministry of Education of China [B08021]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the mechanism of CO poisoning by adjusting the electronic structure of Pt nanocatalysts. The results show that increasing Pt 5d band energy enhances the competitive adsorption of hydrogen against CO, promoting selective oxidation reactions. On the other hand, decreasing Pt 5d band occupancy reduces the coverage of CO sites, facilitating the complete oxidation of CO.
Carbon monoxide (CO) is notorious for its strong adsorption to poison platinum group metal catalysts in the chemical industry. Here, we conceptually distinguish and quantify the effects of the occupancy and energy of d electrons, emerging as the two vital factors in d-band theory, for CO poisoning of Pt nanocatalysts. The stepwise defunctionalization of carbon support is adopted to fine-tune the 5d electronic structure of supported Pt nanoparticles. Excluding other promotional mechanisms, the increase of Pt 5d band energy strengthens the competitive adsorption of hydrogen against CO for the preferential oxidation of CO, affording the scaling relationship between Pt 5d band energy and CO/H-2 adsorption energy difference. The decrease of Pt 5d band occupancy lowers CO site coverage to promote its association with oxygen for the total oxidation of CO, giving the scaling relationship between Pt 5d occupancy and activation energy. The above insights outline a molecular-level understanding of CO poisoning.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据