LCAO-LDA Study of the chemisorption of formate on Cu(110) and Ag(110) surfaces

Abstract

The coordination of formate on the Cu(110) and Ag(110) surfaces has been investigated by coupling density functional theory to the molecular-cluster approach. Two adsorption sites, the bidentate bridging (BB) and the bidentate chelating (BC), have been considered for both surfaces. In the BB arrangement, the HCOO oxygen atoms bridge two adjacent metal (M) atoms in the (11̄0) direction, while in the BC form they chelate a single M atom. Adsorption energies, optimized geometries and vibrational frequencies of the surface HCOO at the BB and BC sites have been computed. Furthermore, the molecular orbitals involved in the adsorbate–substrate interaction have been identified. Independently of the chemisorption site geometry, the HCOO–Cu(110) bond is computed to be stronger and more covalent than that of HCOO–Ag(110). Total energy calculations indicate that the BB coordination site of the Cu(110) surface is favoured with respect to that of BC by ca. 1.0 eV. Despite the nearest neighbour Ag–Ag internuclear distance being longer than that of Cu–Cu, theoretical results pertaining to HCOO on Ag(110) again indicate that the BB site is more stable than that of BC by ca. 0.7 eV.

References

1. B. A. Sexton, Surf. Sci., 1979, 88, 319.
2. M. Bowker and R. J. Madix, Surf. Sci., 1981, 102, 542.
3. B. E. Hayden, K. Prince, D. P. Woodruff and A. M. Bradshaw, Surf. Sci., 1983, 133, 589.
4. M. Bowker, S. Haq, R. Holroyd, P. M. Parlett, S. Poulston and N. Richardson, J. Chem. Soc., Faraday Trans., 1996, 92, 4683.
5. D. A. Outka, R. J. Madix and J. Stöhr, Surf. Sci., 1985, 164, 235.
6. J. Stöhr, R. J. Madix, D. A. Outka and U. Dobler, Phys. Rev. Lett., 1985, 54, 1256.
7. A. Puschmann, J. Haase, M. D. Crapper, C. E. Riley and D. P. Woodruff, Phys. Rev. Lett., 1985, 54, 2250.
8. M. D. Crapper, C. E. Riley and D. P. Woodruff, Phys. Rev. Lett., 1986, 57, 2598.
9. M. D. Crapper, C. E. Riley, D. P. Woodruff, A. Puschmann and J. Haase, Surf. Sci., 1986, 171, 1.
10. M. D. Crapper, C. E. Riley and D. P. Woodruff, Surf. Sci., 1987, 184, 121.
11. Th. Lindner, J. Sommers, A. M. Bradshaw and G. P. Williams, Surf. Sci., 1987, 185, 75.
12. P. Hofmann and D. Menzel, Surf. Sci., 1987, 191, 353.
13. D. P. Woodruff, C. F. McConville, A. L. D. Kilcoyne, Th. Lindner, J. Somers, M. Surman, G. Paolucci and A. M. Bradshaw, Surf. Sci., 1988, 201, 228.
14. L. S. Caputi, G. Chiarello, M. G. Lancelotti, G. A. Rizzi, M. Sambi and G. Granozzi, Surf. Sci., 1993, 291, L756.
15. M. Sambi, G. Granozzi, M. Casarin, G. A. Rizzi, A. Vittadini, L. S. Caputi and G. Chiarello, Surf. Sci., 1994, 315, 309.
16. B. A. Sexton and R. J. Madix, Surf. Sci., 1981, 105, 177.
17. J. McCarty, J. Falconer and R. J. Madix, J. Catal., 1973, 31, 316.
18. M. A. Barteau, M. Bowker and R. J. Madix, Surf. Sci., 1980, 94, 303.
19. A. G. Sault and R. J. Madix, Surf. Sci., 1986, 176, 415.
20. P. A. Stevens, R. J. Madix and J. Stöhr, Surf. Sci., 1990, 230, 1.
21. M. Casarin, G. Granozzi, M. Sambi, E. Tondello and A. Vittadini, Surf. Sci., 1994, 307–309, 95.
22. B. Delley, J. Chem. Phys., 1990, 92, 508.
23. The nearest neighbour Cu–Cu internuclear distance on the Cu(100) and Cu(110) surfaces is the same.
24. Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 64th edn., 1984.
25. H. Nakatsuji, M. Yoshimoto, M. Hada, K. Domen and C. Hirose, Surf. Sci., 1995, 336, 232.
26. M. A. Szymanski and M. J. Gillan, Surf. Sci., 1996, 367, 135.
27. H. Nakatsuji, M. Yoshimoto, Y. Umemura, S. Takagi and M. Hada, J. Phys. Chem., 1996, 100, 694.
28. S. A. Chambers, S. Thevuthasan, Y. J. Kim, G. S. Herman, Z. Wang, E. Tober, R. Ynzunza, J. Morais, C. H. F. Peden, K. Ferris and C. S. Fadley, Chem. Phys. Lett., 1997, 267, 51.
29. These structural parameters are very similar to those pertaining to HCOO on Cu(100) and Cu(110) surfaces.^13,15.
30. W. S. Sim, P. Gardner and D. A. King, J. Phys. Chem., 1996, 100, 12509.
31. The nearest neighbour Ag–Ag distance is the same on the Ag(110) and Ag(111) surfaces.
32. In ref. 21 the basis set of Cu atoms not directly involved in the Cu–O bonding did not include the virtual NAOs of Cu²⁺. Furthermore, the basis sets of the O and C atoms, besides the virtual 2s and 2p NAOs relative to the double charged species, included a single hydrogenic 3d NAO obtained by using Z= 5.
33. J. Ushio, I. Papai, A. St-Amant and D. R. Salahub, Surf. Sci. Lett., 1992, 262, L135.
34. R. S. Mulliken, J. Chem. Phys., 1955, 23, 1833.
35. In Table 1 the expression work function refers to the ionization potential of the highest occupied MO (HOMO) of each cluster through the use of the Koopmans' theorem.⁴¹.
36. V. L. Moruzzi, A. R. Williams and J. F. Janak, Phys. Rev. B, 1977, 15, 2854.
37. H. B. Michaelson, J. Appl. Phys., 1977, 48, 4729.
38. S. Hüfner, G. K. Wertheim, N. V. Smith and M. M. Traum, Solid State Commun., 1972, 11, 323.
39. C. N. Berglund and W. W. Spicer, Phys. Rev. A, 1964, 136, 1044.
40. T. C. Koopmans, Physica, 1933, 1, 104.
41. A further calculation for the Cu₆₀ cluster of ref. 21 has been carried out by using the extended basis set herein adopted for Cu₄₄(I^Cu) and Cu₄₆(II^Cu). The binding energy, E_b : attained per atom (3.11 eV) agrees with (i) the E_b per atom pertaining to I^Cu and II^Cu and (ii) the E_b per atom reported by Delley et al.(3.03 eV) for Cu₇₉.⁴³ This fact makes us confident that the sizes of the adopted clusters are large enough to avoid E_b oscillations.
42. B. Delley, D. E. Ellis, A. J. Freeman, E. J. Baerends and D. Post, Phys. Rev. B, 1983, 27, 2132.
43. (a) S. D. Peyerimhoff, P. S. Skell, D. D. May and R. J. Buenker, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1982, 104, 4515; (b) D. Feller, E. S. Huyser, W. T. Borden and E. R. Davidson, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1983, 105, 1459.
44. In the evaluation of the adsorbed–substrate E_b we always made reference to the E_b(20.5 eV) of the free HCOO lowest electronic state: ²A₁.
45. The E_b of HCOO on M(110) through the use of the HCOO–M₄ and HCOO–M₇ clusters are significantly smaller (2.8 and 1.92 eV for HCOO–Cu₄ and HCOO–Ag₄, respectively; 1.79 and 1.61 eV for HCOO–Cu₇ and HCOO–Ag₇, respectively) than those computed by adopting I^M and II^M(Fig. 4). Nevertheless, variations in E_b on passing from the BB to the BC site or on moving from one substrate to the other are reproduced well.
46. M. A. Barteau and R. J. Madix, Surf Sci., 1982, 120, 262.
47. The HCOO^–π₁ and π₂ MOs are O—C—O totally bonding and non-bonding, respectively. In the surface HCOO, they are parallel to the metallic substrate.
48. In the surface HCOO, n⁺ and n^– point directly toward the M atoms of the metallic substrate.
49. Such a result agrees very well with theoretical data we recently published in a comparative study of CO and NO chemisorption on Cu₂O(111) and Ag₂O(111) non-polar surfaces.⁵¹.
50. M. Casarin, C. Maccato and A. Vittadini, Chem. Phys. Lett., 1997, 280, 53.
51. The significant involvement of Cu₁ 3d orbitals in the HCOO–Cu(110) bonding can be appreciated (Fig. 6) by the presence of an evident shoulder on the low energy side of the Cu₁ 3d peak.
52. It has to be noted that Cu(110)-to-HCOO donation is substantially accounted for by the Cu₁ 4s AOs.
53. In the HCOO D_P of HCOO–I^Cu and HCOO–II^Cu a shoulder is present on the high energy side of the first peak (Fig. 6). This shoulder is not a genuine HCOO orbital but is actually due, in both cases, to MOs accounting for an antibonding interaction between the Cu 3d AOs and the O n^–+ n⁺ linear combinations. In the HCOO D_P of HCOO–I^Ag and HCOO–II^Ag a shoulder is present on the low energy side of the first peak; this shoulder is not a genuine HCOO orbital but is due, in both cases, to MOs accounting for a bonding interaction between the Ag 4d AOs and the O n^–/n⁺ linear combinations.
54. R. W. Joyner and M. W. Roberts, Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A, 1976, 350, 107.