4.5 Article

Simulations to Cover the Waterfront for Iron Oxide Catalysis

期刊

CHEMPHYSCHEM
卷 23, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/cphc.202200025

关键词

oxygen evolution reaction; water splitting; catalysis; Monte Carlo simulations; hematite

资金

  1. Nancy and Stephen Grand Technion Energy Program (GTEP)
  2. ISRAEL SCIENCE FOUNDATION [880/20]
  3. Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST), Israel
  4. KLA-Tencor
  5. COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology) [18234]
  6. Jacobs scholarship for excellence by Technion graduate school

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, the role of interactions between catalytic sites in hematite for catalytic water splitting was investigated. It was found that the interactions between catalytic sites can hinder catalysis and affect the reaction kinetics. Controlling neighboring site interactions provides a potential avenue for improving catalysis.
Hematite has been widely studied for catalytic water splitting, but the role of the interactions between catalytic sites is unknown. In this paper, we calculate the oxygen evolution reaction free energies and the surface adsorption distribution using a combination of density functional theory and Monte Carlo simulations to cover the waterfront, or cover a wide range of properties with a simulation of the hematite surface under working conditions. First, we show that modeling noninteracting catalytic sites provides a poor explanation of hematite's slow reaction kinetics. The interactions between the catalytic site may hinder catalysis through the strong interactions of *OH2 and *OOH intermediates, which cause the reaction to revert back to the *O intermediate. Hence, neighboring interactions may be a possible reason for the abundant, experimentally observed *O intermediate on the surface. This study demonstrates how neighboring sites impact the energy required for catalytic steps, thus providing new avenues to improve catalysis by controlling neighboring site interactions.

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

4.5
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