Untitled

Sellmer, C.; Prins, R.; Kruse, Norbert

doi:10.1023/a:1019000903974

Cited by 25 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Figure 1 f–j shows the evolution, with respect to the SiO 2 content, of the BE of the C 1s [ C (C,H) component], O 1s, Si 2p, Al 2p, and Pd 3d peaks upon taking the Si 2p peak—fixed at 103.4 eV15a,c—as the reference for the calibration of the BE scale.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Calibration of the X‐Ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy Binding Energy Scale for the Characterization of Heterogeneous Catalysts: Is Everything Really under Control?

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Investigations of X-ray photoelectron spectra from solid samples need corrections for the surface charging effect. For powder samples such as heterogeneous catalysts and their supports, the C(C,H) component of the C 1s peak is often used as an internal standard for the calibration of the binding energy scale. Although this method is widely recognized as suitable for the study of heterogeneous catalysts, we show that a significant calibration bias can be encountered upon comparing samples with different bulk composition. In this paper, a series of SiO2 -Al2 O3 supports and Pd/SiO2 -Al2 O3 catalysts with various Si/Al ratios were studied. The spectra issued from these samples were processed with the classical calibration method on the basis of the carbon peak. Important discrepancies in the relative position of the photoelectron peaks were noticed. After systematically discarding instrument-related issues, a true chemical influence of the bulk matrix on the analyzed surface specie... Document type : Article de périodique (Journal article) Référence bibliographiqueJacquemin, Marc ; Genet, Michel J. ; Gaigneaux, Eric M. ; Debecker, Damien P.. Calibration of the X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy binding energy scale for the characterization of heterogeneous catalysts: is everything really under control?.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Calibration of the X‐Ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy Binding Energy Scale for the Characterization of Heterogeneous Catalysts: Is Everything Really under Control?

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Prins and co-workers 266 have shown that on unpromoted Pd-SiO 2 catalysts CH 3 OH/dimethyl ether and CH 4 were produced in a ratio of y1:2 while on group 1 or 2 (Li, Ca)-promoted Pd-SiO 2 methanol selectivities up to y99% were obtained. 292 Based on the described results indicating the absence of CO dissociation independent of surface structure, one can suggest that for unpromoted Pd-SiO 2 the reaction proceeds via a CH x O intermediate which is either stepwise hydrogenated to produce methanol or which undergoes C-O bond cleavage and subsequent hydrogenation of CH x to methane. At least one of these reactions must be structure-sensitive to explain the particle-size-dependent selectivity of CO hydrogenation.…”

Section: ) After Adsorbing 20 L Co On Amentioning

confidence: 90%

8 Surface vibrational spectroscopy on noble metal catalysts from ultrahigh vacuum to atmospheric pressure

Rupprechter

2004

Annu. Rep. Prog. Chem., Sect. C: Phys. Chem.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Sellmer et al [198] investigated the mechanism of methanol synthesis on Ca-promoted Pd/SiO 2 catalysts utilizing X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) and secondary ion mass spectrometry (SIMS). Li-, Ca-, and La-doped Pd/SiO 2 catalysts were tested for methanol synthesis, and the activity was found to be in the order Li < Ca < La.…”

Section: Case Studies Of the Fundamental Basis Of Modifier Action In mentioning

confidence: 99%

Promoters and Poisons

Koel

Kim

2008

Handbook of Heterogeneous Catalysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The sections in this article are Introduction Modifiers in Catalysis Structural Modifiers Bonding Modifiers Promoters and Poisons for Some Important Catalytic Reactions Steam Reforming A Reactive Sites on Ni Catalysts B Alkali and Alkaline Earth Promoters for Ni Catalysts C Sulfur Poisoning of Ni Catalysts Water‐Gas Shift Reaction A Iron‐Based Catalysts: High‐Temperature Shift Catalysts a Structural Modifiers in Iron‐Based Catalysts b Metal and Metal Oxides as Promoters for Catalytic Activity B Copper‐Based Catalysts: Low‐Temperature Shift Catalysts a Structural Modifiers b Cesium Modifiers c Sulfur Poisoning Methanation A Active Phase and Structural Modifiers B Electropositive Modifiers C Electronegative Modifiers F ischer– T ropsch Synthesis A Fe ‐Based Catalysts a Active Phase and Structural Modifiers b Metal Modifiers c Sulfur Modification B Co‐Based Catalysts a Electropositive Modifiers b Electronegative Modifiers Ammonia Synthesis A Summary of Iron Ammonia Synthesis Catalysts B Ruthenium Catalysts for Ammonia Synthesis a Active Phase and Structural Modifiers b Metal Modifiers c Poisoning Modifiers Case Studies of the Fundamental Basis of Modifier Action in Catalysis Ca promotion in Pd / Si O 2 Catalysts for Methanol Synthesis Direct Formation of Hydrogen Peroxide A Pd Catalysts for Direct H 2 O 2 Synthesis B Promotion Effects of Halide Anions Methane Reforming on Au  Ni Catalysts A Recent Studies on Ni Catalysts for Methane Reforming B Methane Reforming on Au ‐Modified Ni Catalysts Oxidative Dehydrogenation of Alkanes A Effects of Supports, Loading, and Preparation B Effect of Alkali Metal Additives on Vanadia Catalysts Summary

show abstract

Untitled

Cited by 25 publications

References 22 publications

Calibration of the X‐Ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy Binding Energy Scale for the Characterization of Heterogeneous Catalysts: Is Everything Really under Control?

Calibration of the X‐Ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy Binding Energy Scale for the Characterization of Heterogeneous Catalysts: Is Everything Really under Control?

8 Surface vibrational spectroscopy on noble metal catalysts from ultrahigh vacuum to atmospheric pressure

Promoters and Poisons

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About