4.6 Article

Competitive adsorption of hydrogen and bromide on Pt(100): Mean-field approximation vs. Monte Carlo simulations

期刊

JOURNAL OF ELECTROANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 588, 期 1, 页码 1-14

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.jelechem.2005.11.034

关键词

competitive adsorption; mean-field approximation; Monte Carlo simulations; short range interactions; Pt(100); hydrogen and bromide adsorption

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The competitive adsorption of hydrogen and bromide on Pt(100) has been studied by modeling the experimental data by means of the mean-field approximation (Frumkin isotherm) and Monte Carlo simulations. This system is characterized by two kinds of species that adsorb at the same surface sites but whose saturation coverages are different (theta(H,max) = 1, theta(Br,max) = 0.5), as a result of different short range interactions. In a first step, hydrogen adsorption on Pt(100) has been modeled and it is found that the Frumkin isotherm and Monte Carlo simulations agree satisfactorily. The parameters obtained from fitting hydrogen adsorption on Pt(100) are then used to model the competitive adsorption of hydrogen and bromide. The competitive adsorption of H and Br causes a surface that is completely covered in the whole potential range. This leads to the existence of an extra degree of freedom in the fitting process that was checked by choosing two limiting values for the Br-Br interaction parameter. By doing so, the remaining interaction parameters and the energies of adsorption can be calculated. Both the approximate mean-field approach and the exact Monte Carlo simulations are able to give good fits of the experimental curve. However, comparison of the results given by the Frumkin isotherm and the Monte Carlo simulations demonstrates that the former is not adequate to model this system. The limitations of the mean-field approach are related to its inability to correctly deal with the presence of strong short range interactions. (c) 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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