1986
DOI: 10.1016/0039-6028(86)90052-x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

CO adsorption studies on pure and Ni-covered Cu(111) surfaces

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

13
50
1

Year Published

1992
1992
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 125 publications
(64 citation statements)
references
References 37 publications
13
50
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Our calculated E ad = À0.48 eV for the (2 2) CO/Cu(111) system agrees very well with available experiment results of E ad = À0.46 to À0.52 eV, [52][53][54] which confirms the validity of our accuracy settings and calculation method. On the contrary, E ad = À0.62 to À0.90 eV, obtained from GGA-PBE and PW91 functionals, [50][51] are relatively lower than those from experiments [52][53][54] and the RPBE functional. [49,51] In our calculations, the magnitudes of E ad are found to be À0.51, À0.48, and À0.06 eV, respectively, when a molecule is adsorbed on the (3 3), (2 2), and (2 1) Cu(111) surfaces at coverage rates of V = 0.11, 0.25, and 0.50 monolayer (ML).…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 91%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Our calculated E ad = À0.48 eV for the (2 2) CO/Cu(111) system agrees very well with available experiment results of E ad = À0.46 to À0.52 eV, [52][53][54] which confirms the validity of our accuracy settings and calculation method. On the contrary, E ad = À0.62 to À0.90 eV, obtained from GGA-PBE and PW91 functionals, [50][51] are relatively lower than those from experiments [52][53][54] and the RPBE functional. [49,51] In our calculations, the magnitudes of E ad are found to be À0.51, À0.48, and À0.06 eV, respectively, when a molecule is adsorbed on the (3 3), (2 2), and (2 1) Cu(111) surfaces at coverage rates of V = 0.11, 0.25, and 0.50 monolayer (ML).…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 91%
“…To provide a comparison, available experimental [52][53][54] and other theoretical results [49][50][51][68][69] are also listed therein. Our calculated E ad = À0.48 eV for the (2 2) CO/Cu(111) system agrees very well with available experiment results of E ad = À0.46 to À0.52 eV, [52][53][54] which confirms the validity of our accuracy settings and calculation method. On the contrary, E ad = À0.62 to À0.90 eV, obtained from GGA-PBE and PW91 functionals, [50][51] are relatively lower than those from experiments [52][53][54] and the RPBE functional.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Likewise, our raw DFT data for Rh(111) is disparate with experimental site preference [31,32] while our corrected energies are in agreement. For Cu(111) the use of the correction gives the experimental site preference [24,33], though the corrected DFT results predict small (≤ 0.1 eV) differences between the top, bridge and hollow sites. Both the raw DFT and the corrected results for Pd(111) agree with the site preference observed by experiment [23,34,35].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For each substrate, the site found to be preferred by experiment is marked with an asterisk (*). Experimental values for E chem are given in parentheses next to E corr GGA for Pt(111) [28,29,30], Rh(111) [31,32], Pd(111) [23,35], Cu(111) [24,33], Pt(100) [36,37,38], Rh(100) [39,40], Pd(100) [38,41], and Cu(100) [42,43] Site ∆Ε S-T (eV) …”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%