1: \documentclass[aps,pre,12pt,onecolumn,epsf,superscriptaddress,graphicx,showpacs]{revtex4}
2: \usepackage{epsfig,latexsym}
3: \usepackage{amsmath,amscd}
4:
5: \newcommand \eps {\epsilon}
6: \newcommand \lan {\langle}
7: \newcommand \ran {\rangle}
8: \newcommand \qt {{\tilde q}}
9:
10: \begin{document}
11:
12: \title{\bf\noindent A comparative study of the energetics of CO on stepped and kinked Cu
13: surfaces using density functional theory}
14:
15:
16: \author{Faisal Mehmood$^{\text{1}}$, Abdelkader Kara$^{\text{1}}$, Talat S. Rahman}
17: \affiliation{116 Cardwell Hall, Department of Physics,
18: Kansas State University,
19: Manhattan, Kansas 66506-2600, USA}
20: \author{Klaus Peter Bohnen}
21: \affiliation{Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe,
22: Institut fuer Festkoerperphysik,
23: D-76021 Karlsruhe,
24: Germany}
25: \date{\today}
26:
27: \begin{abstract}
28: Our \textit{ab initio} calculations of CO adsorption on several low and high
29: Miller index surfaces of Cu show that the adsorption energy increases as the
30: coordination of the adsorption site decreases from 9 to 6, in qualitative
31: agreement with experimental observations. On each surface the adsorption
32: energy is also found to decrease with increase in coverage, although the
33: decrement is not uniform. Calculated vibrational properties show an increase
34: in the frequency of the metal-C mode with decrease in coordination, whereas
35: no such effect is found for the frequency of the CO stretch mode.
36: Examination of the surface electronic structure shows a strong local effect
37: of CO adsorption on the local density of state of the substrate atoms. We
38: also provide some energetics of CO diffusion on Cu(111) and Cu(211).
39: \end{abstract}
40:
41: \pacs{73.20.---r}
42:
43: \maketitle
44:
45: \section{Introduction}
46:
47: Investigation of CO adsorption on well-defined transition metal surfaces has
48: been of great academic interest for several decades \cite{blyholder64,bagus83,
49: davis82,campazona90,wagner87,over01,sung85}
50: because of the molecule's obvious relevance to many industrial
51: processes and as a prototype reactant in studies aiming to provide an
52: understanding of catalytic reactions \cite{davis82,campazona90,wagner87}.
53: These experimental and theoretical \cite{over01,sung85} studies
54: have considered the importance of identifications of 'active sites' based on
55: examination of adsorption and desorption energies and sticking coefficients
56: \cite{davis82,campazona90,wagner87}. Since real catalysts consist of small
57: metal clusters with microfacets of various orientations, the catalyst
58: surface is generally far from that of one with a low Miller index, rather it
59: contains defects like steps and kinks which may play specific roles in
60: determining its reactivity \cite{henry98}. A plausible way to understand
61: systematically the effect of steps and kinks on chemisorption is to
62: undertake the examination of CO adsorption on a set of vicinal surfaces, as
63: has been done in a recent thermal deposition spectroscopy (TDS) study on Cu
64: surfaces. These experimental studies find a dependence of the CO\ binding
65: energy on the coordination of the adsorption site, but surprisingly the
66: effect does not extend to the least undercoordinated sites, namely that of
67: CO on the kink-sites on Cu(532). Vollmer \textit{et. al.} \cite{vollmer01}
68: find hardly any difference in the adsorption energy for CO on a step and a
69: kink site atom implying that coordination alone may not account for the
70: adsorption energy on this vicinal surface. As proposed by Bagus \textit{et.
71: al.} \cite{bagus99} in their study of CO adsorption on Cu(100), the
72: repulsive interaction between the O atom and the \textit{s} states of the
73: substrate can also play an important role in determining the trends in the
74: adsorption energy. Similarly in the extensive study of CO adsorption on the
75: (111) surface of several transition metals, Gajdos \textit{\textit{et. al.}}
76: \cite{gajdos04} argue that the extent of the shift of the $4\sigma $ and $%
77: 5\sigma $ orbital charge density from the C-O bond to the region below the
78: carbon (metal surface) may control the adsorption energetics. Of course, an
79: in-depth understanding of the effect of the local electronic and geometric
80: structure on CO adsorption may be obtained from the application of
81: established theoretical methods such as those based on density functional
82: theory \cite{hohenberg64,kohn65} to the set of Cu surfaces studied
83: in these experiments. Such calculations may raise some concerns since on the
84: low Miller index surfaces of Cu they have been found to: a) show preference
85: for the hollow site \cite{favot01}, while the top site is preferred in the
86: analysis of experimental data \cite{vollmer01}; b) overestimates the CO
87: adsorption energy \cite{gajdos04,favot01}. Very recently several
88: groups \cite{favot01,gajdosss05,mason04} have attempted to
89: supplement DFT functionals in various ways so as to remedy the two above
90: shortcomings of DFT for this system with some success. Our intention in this
91: paper is, however, to carry out a systematic, comparative study of CO
92: chemisorption on the on-top sites of a set of low and high Miller index
93: surfaces of Cu to see the trends in adsorption energies as a function of
94: local coordination and CO coverage. While these calculations have been
95: motivated by experimental data \cite{vollmer01}, we are also aware of
96: theoretical work \cite{bagus99,gajdos04,gajdosss05} on CO
97: adsorption on a few of the surfaces that we are considering here. Naturally,
98: we will compare our results to all available information that exists to
99: date. In addition to the trends in CO adsorption energy on Cu surfaces, we
100: are also interested in the diffusion barrier for CO, since this is a
101: necessary step in any chemical reaction on the surface. A comparative study
102: of the diffusion of CO on Cu(111) and Cu(211) is thus presented. Also, given
103: the interest in reactions at and near steps and kinks on surfaces we have
104: carried out an examination of CO on several sites near these defects. We are
105: also including in this work the effect of CO adsorption on the nature of
106: atomic relaxations of the vicinal surface, to see how the trends in the
107: relaxation patterns correlate with those in the surface electronic
108: structure.
109:
110: After giving the computational details of our work in next section, we
111: present a detailed analysis of the calculated CO adsorption energies as a
112: function of local coordination and their comparison to experiments and other
113: calculations. This is followed by investigations of the implication of
114: increasing CO coverage on adsorption energetics. Rest of the paper is
115: devoted to the characterization of the changes in the surface electronic
116: structure (local density of states, workfunctions) on CO adsorption. The
117: vibrational frequencies of CO are also presented on the set of surfaces.
118:
119: \section{Computational Methods}
120:
121: \textit{Ab initio} calculations performed in this study are based on the
122: well-known density functional theory (DFT) \cite{hohenberg64,kohn65}.
123: For purposes here, a systematic study of the energetics and the
124: electronic structure of a set of Cu surfaces of varying geometry was made by
125: solving Kohn-Sham equations in plane-wave basis set using the Vienna \textit{%
126: ab initio} simulation package {\small (VASP) }
127: \cite{kresse93,kresse96,kresseprb96}.
128: The electron-ion interactions for C, O and
129: Cu are described by ultrasoft pseudopotentials proposed by Vanderbilt
130: \cite{vanderbilt90}.
131: A plane-wave energy cut-off of 400 eV was used for all
132: calculations and is found to be sufficient for these systems
133: \cite{gajdos04,gajdosprb05}.
134: In all calculations reported in this article, the
135: generalized gradient correction of Perdew and Wang \cite{perdew92} (PW91)
136: was used since it has been shown to give results for adsorption energetics
137: and structural parameters which are in better agreement with experiment as
138: compared to those obtained using the local density approximation (LDA)
139: \cite{favot01,fauquet03}.
140: The calculated bulk lattice constant for Cu
141: was found to be 3.6471 \AA\ and the Brillouin zone sampling of the total
142: energy was based on the technique devised by Monkhorst and Pack
143: \cite{monkhorst76}
144: for all bulk calculations with a \textit{k}-point mesh of $%
145: 10\times 10\times 10.$
146:
147: The supercell approach with periodic boundaries is employed to model the
148: surface systems. To calculate the total energies for several coverages of
149: CO, we have used surface unit cells consisting of $2-8$ atoms per layer.
150: While the definition of the coverage for the low Miller index surfaces is
151: conceptually easy and simply defined as the ratio of number of adsorbate and
152: substrate atoms in the surface unit cell, for surfaces with steps and kinks
153: we need also to take into account the specific areas of the unit cells, for
154: consistency. For vicinal surface we have thus adopted a definition for the
155: coverage $(\theta ^{\text{vic}})$ which is related to the one on the (111)
156: surface $(\theta )$ according to $:$ $\theta ^{\text{vic}}=\theta \frac{%
157: A_{(111)}}{A_{\text{vic}}}$, where $A_{(111)}$ is the area of the surface
158: unit cell of Cu(111) and $A_{\text{vic}}$ is the area of the vicinal
159: surface. We have used 2.579 \AA\ as the nearest neighbor distance for
160: evaluating the area of the surface unit cell.
161:
162: Cu(100) and Cu(111) surface systems were modeled by a 4 layer (16 atoms)
163: tetragonal and hexagonal supercell, respectively. These 4 layers are
164: separated with 11 \AA\ of vacuum. For Cu(100), calculations were performed
165: for $c(2\times 2)$ overlayer corresponding to 50\% coverage of CO and for a $%
166: (1\times 1)$ structure corresponding to full coverage even though such a
167: high coverage is unrealistic. For Cu(111), the $p(2\times 2)$ structure
168: corresponding to 33\% CO coverage, and those corresponding to coverages of
169: 66\% and 100\% were also studied. For all coverages considered on Cu(100)
170: and Cu(111), the CO molecule was taken to be adsorbed on the on-top sites,
171: with the molecule sitting perpendicular to the surface and the C atom
172: forming a bond with the Cu surface, as also reported in number of
173: experiments \cite{vollmer01,braun96,graham98}. A $4\times
174: 4\times 1$ Monkhorst-Pack \textit{k}-point mesh was used for Cu(100) and of $%
175: 5\times 5\times 1$ for Cu(111).
176:
177: The Cu(110), Cu(211) and Cu(221) surfaces were modeled by an orthorhombic
178: supercell of 8, 17 and 22 layers, respectively, separated with approximately
179: 12 \AA\ vacuum. For Cu(110), a $(2\times 1)$ surface unit cell (16 Cu atoms)
180: with 1 and 2 CO molecules were chosen to model 50\% and 100\% coverage of
181: CO, respectively, as shown in the Fig. 1c. A Monkhorst-Pack \textit{k}-point
182: mesh of $5\times 7\times 1$ was used for this surface. Both Cu(211) and
183: Cu(221) being regularly stepped surfaces with monoatomic steps and terrace
184: width of 3 and 4 atoms, needed 34 and 44 atoms, respectively, to model a $%
185: (2\times 1)$ surface unit cell. For Cu(211), this supercell corresponds to
186: 17.69\% coverage, while for Cu(221) the corresponding coverage is 14.44\%.
187: Calculations for twice the coverage were also performed by incorporating an
188: additional CO molecule in the same supercell. The detailed analysis was
189: performed for the on-top and the bridge site, also for Cu(221), for which
190: the $(2\times 1)$ supercell corresponds to 14.44\% CO coverage and an
191: additional atom in the same supercell boosts the coverage to 28.88\%. A
192: Monkhorst-Pack \textit{k}-point mesh of $5\times 4\times 1$ was used for
193: (211) and $5\times 3\times 1$ was used for the (221) surface. Finally,
194: Cu(532) whose surface consists of regularly spaced kinks, was modeled by a
195: simple monoclinic supercell of five layers, where each layer has 8
196: non-equivalent atoms. These five layers were separated with 12 \AA\ of
197: vacuum. A Monkhorst-Pack \textit{k}-point mesh of $3\times 4\times 1$ was
198: used and CO was adsorbed on top of the Cu atom at the kink site which is the
199: experimentally proposed preferred site \cite{vollmer01}. Two coverages
200: (10.76\% and 21.52\%) of CO on Cu(532) were modeled by adsorbing one and two
201: molecules, respectively, on the kink site (and on a site very next to kinked
202: site).
203:
204: Since vicinal surfaces provide local environments with a range of
205: coordinations and a hierarchy of adsorption sites may exist on them
206: \cite{stolbov04},
207: we have carried out calculations for one of the stepped
208: surfaces, Cu(211), for eight different sites as indicated in Fig. 1d. Since
209: these results point to a preference for the bridge site, for Cu(221) and
210: Cu(532) we have calculated adsorption energies for the bridge sites, in
211: addition to the on-top site.
212:
213: In order to calculate the total energy of the system for a relaxed
214: configuration, atoms on all surfaces considered were allowed to move in all
215: three directions and the structures were relaxed until the forces acting on
216: each atom were converged to better that 0.02 eV/\AA . The adsorption
217: energies were calculated by subtracting the total energy of the CO-molecule
218: and that of the corresponding fully relaxed clean-Cu surface system from the
219: total energy of CO/Cu surface system $E_{ad}=E_{CO/Cu}-E_{CO}-E_{Cu}$.
220: Another quantity of interest, the workfunction, was calculated by taking the
221: difference of the average vacuum potential and Fermi energy for each
222: surface. Finite difference method was used to obtain vibrational frequencies
223: of the CO molecule in the gas phase and on the surfaces. CO internal
224: stretching and CO-metal stretch frequencies were calculated in the direction
225: perpendicular to the surface. To analyze the nature of the bonding between
226: CO and the Cu-atoms, local density of states were also obtained. A Gaussian
227: function of 0.2 eV width was used to smoothen the local density of states
228: (LDOS).
229:
230: \section{Results and Discussion}
231:
232: As already mentioned above, the collection of surfaces studied here provide
233: variation of adsorption sites with coordination ranging from 6 to 9. The
234: kink sites with coordination 6 on Cu(532) are particularly interesting
235: because of their unexpected results from TDS measurements \cite{vollmer01}.
236: Also of significance is the fact that the step edges of Cu(211) and
237: Cu(221) represent the two different microfacets of monoatomic steps on
238: fcc(111) surfaces. Cu(211) has the (100)-microfacet while Cu(221) has the
239: (111)-microfacet. It will be interesting to see if such differences in their
240: geometry affect the energetics of CO on these surfaces. In Table I, we have
241: compared our calculated CO bond length and the corresponding surface-carbon
242: distance for these three surfaces. While the C-O bond length remains
243: insensitive to the local geometry and coordination, C-Cu bond is much
244: shorter for bridge (b) then ontop (t) site adsorption. As for Cu(532) there
245: are two non equivalent bridge sites labeled by b$_{\text{KS1}}$ and b$_{%
246: \text{KS2}}$ in Table I and Fig. 1f. The C-O bond lengths are very close to
247: the ones calculated by others \cite{braun96,graham98}. When CO is
248: adsorbed on the bridge site on the three vicinal surfaces, the CO bond
249: length slightly increases and the carbon-surface distance decreases. Earlier
250: DFT calculations for CO on Cu(211) also find the same trend \cite{gajdosprb05}.
251: The only available date \cite{moler96,andersson79,mcconville86}
252: of bond lengths is for the low Miller index surfaces
253: and is in good agreement with our calculated value of 1.16 \AA\ for the C-O
254: bond length and 1.85 \AA\ and 1.86 \AA\ C-Cu bond for Cu(111) and Cu(100),
255: respectively. When compared to vicinal surfaces, we do not see any
256: difference for C-O bond length and a small variation within 0.02 \AA\ for
257: C-Cu bonds. A small increase of 0.02 \AA\ was seen in C-Cu bond when CO
258: coverage was increased from 33\% to 100\% whereas when coverage is doubled
259: from 50\% in Cu(100) and Cu(110), we see only 0.01 \AA\ increase in C-Cu
260: bonds and no change was found in C-O bond lengths.
261:
262: \subsection{Adsorption Energies}
263:
264: Our calculated CO adsorption energies on various Cu surfaces and their
265: surface atomic coordination is summarized in Table II. The lowest
266: coordinated and in turn the most favorable for CO adsorption is the kink
267: atom on Cu(532) (Fig. 1f), with the highest adsorption energy of 0.98 eV at
268: a coverage of 10.75\% CO (i.e. one CO molecule/per kink atom). The
269: calculated adsorption energy for this case is found to be particularly
270: higher than what has been seen experimentally. Although overestimation of
271: adsorption energies is typical of DFT based calculations, it is expected
272: that the qualitative behavior would be similar. For CO adsorption on the
273: steps of Cu(110), Cu(211) and Cu(221) with atomic coordination 7, our
274: calculations find $E_{ad}$ to be about $0.86\pm 0.01$ eV, while experimental
275: values are around 0.6 eV. For adsorption on the kink site we predict an
276: increase in $E_{ad}$ while experiments \cite{vollmer01} find it to be same
277: as for the steps. As is clear from Fig. 2 our calculated values scale nicely
278: with the surface coordination and the variation is larger than that
279: extracted from experimental data, which is plotted in Fig. 2 for comparison.
280: The natural question is why this difference between theory and experiment.
281: We offer here a few rationale. For example, there is the possibility that
282: site blocking by another CO could lead to smaller measured value on an open
283: surface like Cu(532). To test the viability of this proposition, we adsorbed
284: an additional CO molecule on a site next to the kink site (SC1 in Fig. 1f)
285: which increased the coverage to 21.5\%. As we see in Table II, this leads to
286: a decrease in the adsorption energy to 0.85 eV which is very close to what
287: we find for Cu stepped surfaces. The variation of the adsorption energy with
288: coverage is quite remarkable for all surfaces considered. For Cu(221) $E_{ad}
289: $ changes from 0.85 eV for 14.5\% coverage to 0.65 for 29\% coverage.
290: Although DFT studies of CO adsorption on Cu(110) and Cu(211) have already
291: been reported in the literature \cite{gajdos04,gajdosss05,gajdosprb05,liem04},
292: for consistency we have included them in
293: Table II. Though we have used the same $(2\times 1)$ cell for Cu(211), this
294: leads to a different coverage (17.69\%) from that on Cu(221) because of the
295: difference in the terrace width. The same $(2\times 1)$ cell used for
296: Cu(110) (with [110] being \textit{x} and [100] being \textit{y}-directions),
297: as shown in Fig. 1c, results in a 50\% coverage. The CO molecule is adsorbed
298: on the top site on Cu(110) and Cu(211), as shown in Fig. 1d and 1e. Our
299: calculated adsorption energies are within 20 meV of each other for all of
300: cases involving atoms with coordination 7. For Cu(211) our calculated value
301: is somewhat smaller than in Ref. \cite{gajdos04} which may be associated
302: with the differences in calculational details. For CO adsorption on Cu(110)
303: Liem \textit{et. al.} \cite{liem04} obtained an adsorption energy of 0.95
304: eV for the same coverage and on-top site. The discrepancy with our results
305: could be due to the usage of fewer layers and smaller \textit{k}-point mesh
306: and energy cut-off in their calculations. For example, we find the
307: adsorption energy to change from 0.87 eV to 0.89 eV when we reduce the
308: number of layers in our supercell from 8 to 6 (note that a three layer slab
309: was used in Ref. \cite{liem04}). Also, we have found an energy cut-off of
310: 300 eV to be not sufficient to provide converged results for the total
311: energy for open surfaces such as the (110). A cut-off of at least 400 eV
312: (value used in all our calculations) is required for accurate determination
313: of adsorption energies.
314:
315: For the next surface in this hierarchy Cu(100) whose surface atoms have
316: coordination 8, we obtain an adsorption energy of 0.77 eV for a 50\% CO
317: coverage. This result is again higher than the experimental value which
318: ranges, between $0.5$ and $0.57$ eV \cite{graham98,fohlisch04}. On
319: the other hand, our result is close agreement with the calculated value of
320: 0.863 eV found for a smaller coverage of 0.25 ML by Gajdos and Hafner \cite
321: {gajdosss05}, using the same DFT technique. Finally, we turn to Cu(111)
322: which has a surface atoms with coordination 9 and displays the lowest
323: adsorption energy of all surfaces discussed here. For this particular
324: surface, we have used the experimentally studied $p(2\times 2)$ overlayer
325: which corresponds to 33\% CO coverage. For 0.25 ML coverage an adsorption
326: energy of 0.74 eV has already been reported \cite{gajdos04}. The small
327: difference from our result of 0.634 eV may be assigned to the difference in
328: coverage, and is consistent with a decrease of adsorption energy with an
329: increase of coverage. The clear trend of increasing adsorption energy with
330: decreasing local coordination can be seen from the plot in Fig. 2 where
331: solid triangles are our calculated values and empty triangles are the one
332: from the experiment \cite{vollmer01}.
333:
334: As expected we find a hierarchy of adsorption sites on Cu(211). The bridge
335: site (labeled 2 in Fig. 1d) was found to be slightly preferred over on-top
336: by $\sim $ 0.06 eV. The sites labeled 3 (fcc-hollow) and 4 (hcp hollow near
337: step edge), in Fig 1d were the next preferred with adsorption energies of
338: 0.78 and 0.89 eV, respectively. The least favorable site on this surface was
339: found to be the site labeled 6 which is between two step edges and two
340: corner atoms and has highest number of bonds with the carbon atom and an
341: adsorption energy of 0.56 eV. On Site 5, 7 and 8 adsorption energies are
342: very close to each other ranging from 0.6 - 0.65 eV. The adsorption site
343: with the highest coordination is the corner atom (CC) on Cu(211) with
344: effective surface coordination of 10, and labeled as site \# 8 in Fig. 1d
345: for which we find the adsorption energy to be the lowest of all (0.617 eV),
346: consistent with the above discussion. Note that we find the bridge site to
347: be also preferred by about 0.08 eV over the on-top site for CO adsorption on
348: Cu(221). On the other hand, for Cu(532) which has two non-equivalent bridge
349: sites referred as b$_{\text{KS1}}$ and b$_{\text{KS2}}$ in Table II and Fig.
350: 1f, we find the adsorption energy to be 0.94 eV which is less than that on
351: the kink site.
352:
353: In all cases, adsorption energies drop by $130-250$ meV when the coverage is
354: doubled for these high Miller index surfaces. Various experiments already
355: show the strong dependence of adsorption energy on CO coverage on Cu surface
356: \cite{tracy72,peterson90,truong92}. The electron energy
357: loss spectroscopy (EELS) experiment of Peterson \textit{et. al.} \cite
358: {peterson90} shows a 50\% decrease in adsorption energy for 0.3ML increase
359: in CO coverage for Cu(100).
360:
361: \subsection{CO diffusion on metal surface}
362:
363: One of the experimental techniques to determine the adsorption energies is
364: the temperature programmed desorption (TPD). It is hence desirable to
365: develop a techniques by which TPD spectra are calculated for a given system.
366: For the case of low Miller index surfaces, the task may be trivial as only a
367: limited number of processes are involved. But for the case of real surfaces
368: with steps and kinks, the situation become more cumbersome. To achieve a
369: realistic description of TPD spectra from these surfaces, one needs to
370: calculate not only adsorption energies for sites with different local
371: environments, but also activation energies associated with different
372: diffusion paths. As we have reported above, the CO molecules adsorb
373: preferably near kinks and steps, and it is hence rarely that CO molecules
374: sit on the down side of the terrace (sites 6 and 8 in Fig. 1d). The relevant
375: energies are hence those associated with diffusion on Cu(111) and near the
376: step of a Cu vicinal surface. Here we have in mind systems dominated by the
377: presence of (111) facets and step edges. The knowledge of these activation
378: energies along with the different adsorption energies will constitute the
379: base for kinetic Monte Carlo simulations that will determine the TPD
380: spectra. In order to reach this goal, the energy landscape for the diffusion
381: of CO on Cu(111) and Cu(211) surfaces were calculated. Since we were
382: interested in describing the motion of the CO molecule between the
383: equilibrium sites, the path on Cu(111) was chosen to be from one top site to
384: the adjacent one, passing through fcc-hollow, bridge, and hcp hollow sites
385: (Fig. 3). All layers of the metal surface, and C and O atoms were allowed to
386: relax fully in all three directions on high symmetry sites. For the
387: intermediate sites only carbon atom was fixed in one direction and rest of
388: the system was allowed to relax fully. Three intermediate points between the
389: top and the bridge site and two points for each bridge - fcc-hollow and
390: bridge - hcp-hollow were calculated, as shown in Fig.4a. The relative energy
391: profile of the CO molecule on Cu(111) is shown in Fig. 4a. As in previous
392: studies, our calculations based on DFT with GGA indicate that CO prefers to
393: sit on fcc hollow site instead of the top site. However, our calculations
394: show a barrier of about 200 meV to go from the hollow to the top site and
395: less than 100 meV to go from the hollow to the bridge site. Fig. 4b and 4c,
396: show the one dimensional energy landscape for the CO molecule on Cu(211).
397: Two diffusion paths are chosen in this case: a) top - bridge - top (along
398: the step edge) and b) top - fcc-hollow (away from the step). Fig. 4b
399: indicates that diffusion from bridge to top is more favorable than from top
400: to hollow with diffusion barrier about 60 meV compared about 200 meV barrier
401: for diffusion from top to hollow site. These results indicate that CO
402: molecules are more free to roam on the step edge of Cu(211) than away from
403: it.
404:
405: \subsection{Interlayer Relaxations}
406:
407: In Table III, we present a comparison of the interlayer relaxations of the
408: stepped and kinked Cu surfaces as introduced by the adsorption of the CO
409: molecule. The results for the corresponding clean surfaces are also
410: included. The Cu(532) surface has the most dramatic effect of CO adsorption
411: as $\mathbf{d}_{1,2}$ is found to have a large outward relaxation of $%
412: +23.5\% $ compared to an inward relaxation of $-17.7\%$ for the clean
413: surface. The effect is local and as seen from Table III, there is only a
414: small change in the relaxations for the rest of the layers on CO adsorption.
415: There is so far no experimental data available for interlayer relaxation on
416: Cu(532), however, our calculated trend for clean Cu(532) is in agreement
417: with those calculated with many body potentials \cite{mehmood05}. On the
418: stepped surface Cu(221), the effect of CO adsorption is also mostly on $%
419: \mathbf{d}_{1,2}$ in which large inward relaxation of $-16.5\%$ on the clean
420: surface is overtaken by a small outward relaxation of $+2.9\%$. Calculated
421: interlayer relaxation on clean Cu(221) matches well with those obtained with
422: the full-potential linear augmented plane-wave method (FPLAPW) \cite
423: {desilva04} and many body potentials \cite{sklyadneva98} for this
424: surface. The interlayer relaxations of clean Cu(211) agrees with those
425: obtained from low energy electron diffraction measurements and previous
426: theoretical techniques \cite{gajdosprb05,sondan97,seyller99}.
427: Like other two surfaces, Cu(211) shows that the strong contraction of $%
428: -15.6\%$ between layer 1 and 2 ($\mathbf{d}_{1,2}$) of the clean surface is
429: overtaken by a small inward relaxation of $+6.4\%$ on CO chemisorption..
430: This general trend of the change in the top layer relaxation from a large
431: contraction to expansion upon adsorption of CO is in well accord with the
432: observation by Ibach and Bruchman \cite{ibach78} who reported a surface
433: vibrational mode above the bulk band for the vicinal surface Pt(775) (due to
434: the large contraction) that disappears when CO is adsorbed (reflecting the
435: change of the large contraction to an expansion).
436:
437: \subsection{Vibrational Properties and Workfunctions}
438:
439: Vibrational properties of a `free' CO molecule were calculated by fully
440: relaxing a single molecule in a large super cell of size, approximately $%
441: 6\times 6\times 22$ \AA . The stretching mode was calculated to be 264.5
442: meV. This can be compared with the experimentally measured frequency of
443: isolated CO molecule of 257.8 meV with EELS and of 257.7 meV with infrared
444: (IR) spectroscopy \cite{hirschmugl90,raval88}. For CO-covered Cu
445: surfaces, we have calculated the frequencies of two modes: the metal -
446: molecule ($\nu _{C-Cu}$) stretch and the intra-molecular stretch ($\nu _{C-O}
447: $). We find a small drop in the vibrational frequency as compared to that of
448: the gas phase CO due to the bonding on CO with the Cu surface atom. The
449: frequencies of the CO vibrational modes calculated for all surfaces are
450: summarized in Table IV. For all cases in which CO is adsorbed on the top
451: site we see almost the same value of the CO stretching frequency ($\nu _{C-O}
452: $), as expected. However, there is a small increase in ($\nu _{C-Cu}$), with
453: a decrease in the coordination of the substrate atom. This is also to be
454: expected since molecules adsorbed on low coordinated sites will have stiffer
455: bonds than those on highly coordinated sites. Whereas, for the case of the
456: bridge site, there is a decrease of approximately $14-16$ meV in CO stretch
457: frequency, from that for top site, for all cases. In this case understood
458: due to the molecule strongly bonded with two surface atoms and being not as
459: free to vibrate as on top site. The drop in $\nu _{C-Cu}$ mode is also $2-4$
460: meV greater than top site.
461:
462: In Table V, we have summarized the calculated workfunctions for all Cu
463: surfaces considered here, with and without the adsorbate along with
464: available experimental values for clean surfaces of Cu(100), Cu(111) and
465: Cu(110). Our calculated workfunctions are smaller than the experimental
466: values of the known surfaces \cite{fall2000,arafune04,mantz71}.
467: Our calculated values showed a decrease in workfunctions for
468: clean surfaces with decrease in coordination of substrate. A similar kind of
469: behavior can be seen in the experiments for (111), (100) and (110) surface
470: \cite{fall2000,arafune04,mantz71}. Our calculations also
471: showed an increasing trend on workfunction when CO is adsorbed on the
472: surface. This effect is strongest for Cu(100) surface with workfunction
473: change of 0.57 eV for all other surfaces this change is less than 0.17 eV.
474:
475: \subsection{Surface Electronic Structure}
476:
477: When an electronegative element like C is adsorbed on a metallic surface, it
478: tends to take charges away from the surface. This would have a strong
479: dependence upon the coordination of the adsorbate as reported in many
480: studies \cite{fohlisch2000}. Since we have considered CO adsorption on a
481: variety of local atomic environments it is important that we examine the
482: differences in the local electronic structure and the nature of the bonding
483: of the CO with the substrate. In Fig. 5 - Fig. 7, we have plotted the local
484: density of \textit{d}-state (LDOS) of Cu atoms and \textit{sp}-states for C
485: and O atoms to study the \textit{sp-d} hybridization, for three high Miller
486: index surfaces of interest here. First of all, we see narrowing (Fig. 5 -
487: Fig. 7) of the \textit{d}-band for the lower coordinated surfaces, as seen
488: by Tersoff \textit{et. al.} \cite{tersoff81} for their calculations of Ni
489: and Cu surfaces. The \textit{sp}-state of C and O are split and have almost
490: filled bonding band. These states make sub-bands with \textit{d}-state of Cu
491: surface in all case which can be seen to appear at the same low energies as
492: for CO case. This affect is found to be more localized on flat surfaces but
493: on stepped surfaces, even though CO is adsorbed on top site we see a small
494: change in redistribution of LDOS for next layer atom, which can be caused
495: due to the small inter layer separation i.e. 0.296 \AA\ for (532) as
496: compared to the biggest 2.1 \AA\ for (111) case. The next layer atom being
497: so close to CO also experiences some affect of the adsorbate. This could
498: well describe the different adsorption energies with different coordination.
499: Along with this electronic charge density distribution and LDOS for these
500: atoms we can safely say that this difference for flat (high coordinated
501: sites) and stepped and kinked (low coordinated sites) could serve as the
502: basis of different adsorption energies.
503:
504: \section{Conclusions}
505:
506: In this paper, we have presented the results of a detailed theoretical
507: investigation of CO adsorption on three low Miller index surfaces, namely,
508: (111), (100), (110), two stepped surfaces, (211) and (221), and a kinked
509: (532) surface of Cu. The CO was adsorbed on experimentally observed
510: preferred sites to explain trends in adsorption energies due to different
511: geometrical and chemical structure. Our calculated values of adsorption
512: energies show the increasing trend with decrease in local coordination of
513: surface atoms with Cu(532) being the most favorable surface for CO
514: adsorption with lowest coordination. However bridge sites of Cu(211) and
515: Cu(221) were found to be slightly preferred over top site which was not the
516: case for Cu(532). We also found a strong dependence of adsorption energy on
517: coverage of the adsorbate. Our calculations show a large decrease in
518: adsorption energy with increase in coverage. Our calculations of diffusion
519: of CO molecule on metal surfaces indicate that it diffuses much more easily
520: along the step edge as compared to away from the step edge (terrace). A very
521: small drop in vibrational frequency of free molecule was noted when it was
522: adsorbed on the metal surface but difference within different surfaces was
523: negligible due to same on top adsorption site for all surfaces. Workfunction
524: of adsorbate covered surface was found to increase in all cases compared to
525: the clean surface.
526:
527: \noindent {\bf Acknowledgments}
528:
529: The authors would like to thank Dr. Sergey Stolbov and Dr. Claude R. Henry
530: for interesting and very helpful discussions. We also like to acknowledge
531: financial support from US Department of Energy under grant No.
532: DE-FGO3-03ER15445 and computational resources provided by National Science
533: Foundation Cyberinfrastructure and TeraGrid grant No. TG-DMR050018N.
534:
535: \begin{thebibliography}{10}
536:
537: \bibitem{blyholder64}
538: G.~Blyholder,
539: \newblock{J. Phys. Chem.} {\bf 68}, 2772 (1964).
540:
541: \bibitem{bagus83}
542: P.~S.~Bagus, C.~J.~Nelin and C.~W.~Bauschlicher,
543: \newblock{Phys. Rev. B} {\bf 28}, 5423 (1983).
544:
545: \bibitem{davis82} S. M. Davis and G. A. Somorjai, in The Chemical Physics
546: of Solid Surfaces, edited by D. A. King and D. A. Woodruff (Elsevier,
547: Amsterdam, 1982), Vol. 4.
548:
549: \bibitem{campazona90} J. C. Campazona, in The Chemical Properties of Solid
550: Surfaces and Heterogenous Catalysis, edited by D. A. King and D. P. Woodruff
551: (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1990), Vol. 3, Part A.
552:
553: \bibitem{wagner87} H. Wagner, in Springer Tracts in Modern Physics, edited
554: by G. Hoehler (Springer, Berlin, 1987).
555:
556: \bibitem{over01} H. Over, Prog. Surf. Sci. \textbf{58}, 249 (2001).
557:
558: \bibitem{sung85} S. Sung and R. Hoffmann, J. Am. Chem. Soc. \textbf{107},
559: 578 (1985).
560:
561: \bibitem{henry98} C. R. Henry, Surf. Sci. Rep. \textbf{31}, 231 (1998).
562:
563: \bibitem{vollmer01} S. Vollmer, G. Witte, C. W\"{o}ll, Cat. Lett., \textbf{%
564: 77}, 97 (2001).
565:
566: \bibitem{bagus99} P. Bagus and C. W\"{o}ll, Chem. Phys. Lett. \textbf{294},
567: 599 (1999).
568:
569: \bibitem{gajdos04} M. Gajdos, A Eichler, and J. Hafner, J. Phys.: Condens.
570: Matter. \textbf{16}, 1141 (2004).
571:
572: \bibitem{hohenberg64} P. Hohenberg and W. Kohn, Phys. Rev. \textbf{136},
573: 864 (1964).
574:
575: \bibitem{kohn65} W. Kohn and L. J. Sham, Phys. Rev. \textbf{140}, A1133
576: (1965).
577:
578: \bibitem{favot01} F. Favot, A. D. Corso, and A. Baldereschi, J. Chem. Phys.
579: \textbf{114}, 483 (2001).
580:
581: \bibitem{gajdosss05} M. Gajdos and J. Hafner, Surf. Sci., \textbf{590}, 117
582: (2005).
583:
584: \bibitem{mason04} S. E. Mason, I. Grinberg, and A. M. Rappe, Phys. Rev. B
585: \textbf{69}, 161401 (2004).
586:
587: \bibitem{kresse93} G. Kresse and J. Hafner, Phys. Rev. B \textbf{47}, 558
588: (1993).
589:
590: \bibitem{kresse96} G. Kresse and J. Furthmuller, Comput. Mater. Sci.
591: \textbf{6}, 15 (1996).
592:
593: \bibitem{kresseprb96} G. Kresse and J. Furthmueller, Phys. Rev. B \textbf{54%
594: }, 11169 (1996).
595:
596: \bibitem{vanderbilt90} D. Vanderbilt, Phys. Rev. B. \textbf{41}, 7892
597: (1990).
598:
599: \bibitem{gajdosprb05} M. Gajdos, A. Eichler, J. Hafner, G. Meyer, and K-H
600: Rieder, Phys. Rev. B. \textbf{71}, 035402 (2005).
601:
602: \bibitem{perdew92} J. P. Perdew, J. A. Chevary, S. H. Vosko et al., Phys.
603: Rev. B \textbf{46}, 6671 (1992).
604:
605: \bibitem{fauquet03} P. Fouquet, R. A. Olsen, and E. J. Baerends, J. Chem.
606: Phys. \textbf{119}, 509 (2003).
607:
608: \bibitem{monkhorst76} H. J. Monkhorst and J. D. Pack, Phys. Rev. B \textbf{%
609: 13}, 5188 (1976).
610:
611: \bibitem{braun96} J. Braun, A. P. Graham, F. Hofmann, W. Silvestri, J. P.
612: Toennies, and G. Witte, J. Chem. Phys., \textbf{105}, 3258 (1996).
613:
614: \bibitem{graham98} A. P. Graham, F. Hofmann, J. P. Toennies, G. P.
615: Williams, C. J. Hirschmugl, and J. Ellis, J. Chem. Phys. \textbf{108}, 7825
616: (1998).
617:
618: \bibitem{stolbov04} S. Stolbov, F. Mehmood, T. S. Rahman, M. Alatalo, I.
619: Makkonen, and P. Salo, Phys. Rev. B \textbf{70}, 155410 (2004).
620:
621: \bibitem{moler96} E. J. Moler, S. A. Kellar, W. R. A. Huff, Z. Hussain, Y.
622: Chen, and D. A. Shirley, Phys. Rev. B \textbf{54}, 10862 (1996).
623:
624: \bibitem{andersson79} S. Andersson and J. B. Pendry, Phys. Rev. Lett.
625: \textbf{43}, 363366 (1979).
626:
627: \bibitem{mcconville86} C. F. McConville, D. P. Woodruff, K. C. Prince, G.
628: Paolucci, V. Chab, M. Surman, and A. M. Bradshaw, Surf. Sci. \textbf{166},
629: 221 (1986).
630:
631: \bibitem{liem04} S. Y. Liem and J. H. R. Clarke, J. Chem. Phys. \textbf{121}%
632: , 4339 (2004).
633:
634: \bibitem{fohlisch04} A. F\"{o}hlisch, W. Wurth, M. Stichler, C. Keller, and
635: A. Nilsson, J. Chem. Phys. \textbf{121}, 4848 (2004).
636:
637: \bibitem{tracy72} J. C. Tracy, J. Chem. Phys. \textbf{56}, 2748 (1972).
638:
639: \bibitem{peterson90} L. D. Peterson and S. D. Kevan, Surf. Sci. Lett.
640: \textbf{235}, L285 (1990).
641:
642: \bibitem{truong92} C. M. Truong, J. A. Rodriguez, and D. W. Goodman, Surf.
643: Sci. Lett. \textbf{271}, L385 (1992).
644:
645: \bibitem{mehmood05} F. Mehmood, A. Kara, T. S. Rahman, to be published.
646:
647: \bibitem{desilva04} J. L. F. Da Silva, K. Schroeder, and S. Bl\"{u}gel,
648: Phys. Rev. B \textbf{70}, 245432 (2004).
649:
650: \bibitem{sklyadneva98} I. Y. Sklyadneva, G. G. Rusina, and E. V. Chulkov,
651: Surf. Sci. \textbf{416}, 17 (1998).
652:
653: \bibitem{sondan97} S. Durukano\u{g}lu, A. Kara, and T. S. Rahman, Phys.
654: Rev. B \textbf{55}, 13894 (1997).
655:
656: \bibitem{seyller99} T. Seyller, R. D. Diehl, and F. Jona, J. Vac. Sci.
657: Technol. A \textbf{17}, 1635 (1999).
658:
659: \bibitem{ibach78} H. Ibach and D. Bruchmann, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{41},
660: 958 (1978).
661:
662: \bibitem{hirschmugl90} C. J. Hirschmugl, G. P. Williams, F. M. Hoffmann,
663: and Y. J. Chabal, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{65}, 480 (1990).
664:
665: \bibitem{raval88} R. Raval, S.F. Parker, M.E. Pemble, P. Hollins, J.
666: Pritchard, and M.A. Chesters, Surf. Sci. \textbf{203}, 353 (1988).
667:
668: \bibitem{fall2000} C. J. Fall, N. Binggeli, and A. Baldereschi, Phys. Rev.
669: B \textbf{61}, 8489 (2000).
670:
671: \bibitem{arafune04} R. Arafune, K. Hayashi, S. Ueda, and S. Ushioda, Phys.
672: Rev. Lett. \textbf{92}, 247601 (2004).
673:
674: \bibitem{mantz71} W. Mantz, James K. G. Watson, K. Narahari Rao, D. L.
675: Albritton, A. L. Schmeltekopf, and R. N. Zare, J. Mol. Spectrosc. \textbf{39}%
676: , 180 (1971).
677:
678: \bibitem{fohlisch2000} A. F\"{o}hlisch, M. Nyberg, J. Hasselstr\"{o}m, O.
679: Karis, L. G. M. Pettersson, and A. Nilsson, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{85},
680: 3309 (2000).
681:
682: \bibitem{tersoff81} J. Tersoff and L. M. Falicov, Phys. Rev. B \textbf{24},
683: 754 (1981).
684:
685: \end{thebibliography}\pagebreak
686:
687:
688: %TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{B}{\begin{table}[tbp] \centering}}
689: %BeginExpansion
690: \begin{table}[tbp] \centering%
691: %EndExpansion
692: \caption{Calculated structural properties of CO adsorbed on the top (t) and
693: bridge (b) sites on Cu(211), Cu(221) and Cu(532). The two non equivalent bridge
694: sites on Cu(532) (see Fig. 1f) are labeled as b$_{KS1}$ and b$_{KS1}$.
695: Values in square brackets are reported by others [21].
696: \label{key}}
697: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
698: \hline
699: \textbf{Surface} & \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{
700: \begin{tabular}{cccccc}
701: \multicolumn{6}{c}{\textbf{Bond Lengths }(\AA )} \\
702: $\mathbf{d}_{C-O}$ & & & & & $\mathbf{d}_{C-Cu}$%
703: \end{tabular}
704: } \\ \hline
705: \textbf{Cu(211)} &
706: \begin{tabular}{c}
707: 1.16 (t)[1.154] \\
708: 1.17 (b)[1.168]
709: \end{tabular}
710: &
711: \begin{tabular}{c}
712: 1.85 (t)[1.84] \\
713: 1.51(b)[1.50]
714: \end{tabular}
715: \\ \hline
716: \textbf{Cu(221)} &
717: \begin{tabular}{c}
718: 1.16 (t) \\
719: 1.17 (b)
720: \end{tabular}
721: &
722: \begin{tabular}{c}
723: 1.86 (t) \\
724: 1.51 (b)
725: \end{tabular}
726: \\ \hline
727: \textbf{Cu(532)} &
728: \begin{tabular}{c}
729: 1.16 (t) \\
730: 1.17 (b$_{KS1}$) \\
731: 1.17 (b$_{KS2}$)
732: \end{tabular}
733: &
734: \begin{tabular}{c}
735: 1.85 (t) \\
736: 1.56 (b$_{KS1}$) \\
737: 1.58 (b$_{KS2}$)
738: \end{tabular}
739: \\ \hline
740: \end{tabular}
741: %TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{E}{\end{table}}}
742: %BeginExpansion
743: \end{table}%
744: %EndExpansion
745:
746: %TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{B}{\begin{table}[tbp] \centering}}
747: %BeginExpansion
748: \begin{table}[tbp] \centering%
749: %EndExpansion
750: \caption{Variation of the adsorption energies (E$_{ad}$) of CO for two coverages on several Cu surfaces. The
751: coverage in the lower entry (in parenthesis) is twice as large as the one for the top
752: entry for each surface. In the upper entries the experimental values from
753: Ref \cite{vollmer01} are in parenthesis. N$_{NN}$ is the coordination of
754: the adsorption site. \label{key}}
755: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
756: \hline
757: \textbf{Surface} & \textbf{Cu(111)} & \textbf{Cu(100)} & \textbf{Cu(110)} &
758: \textbf{Cu(211)} & \textbf{Cu(221)} & \textbf{Cu(532)} \\ \hline
759: \textbf{N}$_{NN}$ & 9 & 8 & 7 & 7 & 7 & 6 \\ \hline
760: \textbf{E}$_{ad}$\textbf{\ (eV)} & $
761: \begin{tabular}{c}
762: 0.634(0.49) \\
763: \\
764: \\
765: 0.18{\small (100\%)}
766: \end{tabular}
767: $ & $
768: \begin{tabular}{c}
769: 0.77(0.53) \\
770: \\
771: \\
772: 0.18{\small (100\%)}
773: \end{tabular}
774: $ & $
775: \begin{tabular}{c}
776: 0.87(0.56) \\
777: \\
778: \\
779: 0.55{\small (100\%)}
780: \end{tabular}
781: $ & $
782: \begin{tabular}{c}
783: 0.86(0.61) \\
784: 0.925(b) \\
785: \\
786: 0.61{\small (35.4\%)}
787: \end{tabular}
788: $ & $
789: \begin{tabular}{c}
790: 0.85(0.60) \\
791: 0.933 (b) \\
792: \\
793: 0.65{\small (28.9\%)}
794: \end{tabular}
795: $ & $
796: \begin{tabular}{c}
797: 0.98(0.59) \\
798: 0.941(b$_{KS1}$) \\
799: 0.949(b$_{KS2}$) \\
800: 0.85{\small (21.5\%)}
801: \end{tabular}
802: $ \\ \hline
803: \end{tabular}
804: %TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{E}{\end{table}}}
805: %BeginExpansion
806: \end{table}%
807: %EndExpansion
808:
809: %TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{B}{\begin{table}[tbp] \centering}}
810: %BeginExpansion
811: \begin{table}[tbp] \centering%
812: %EndExpansion
813: \caption{Comparison of clean and CO covered $\%$ multilayer
814: relaxations.\label{key}}
815: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
816: \hline
817: $\mathbf{d}_{\text{i,i+1}}$ & \textbf{Cu(211)} & \textbf{CO/Cu(211)} &
818: \textbf{Cu(221)} & \textbf{CO/Cu(221)} & \textbf{Cu(532)} & \textbf{%
819: CO/Cu(532)} \\ \hline
820: $\mathbf{d}_{1,2}$ & $-15.6$ & $+6.4$ & $-16.5$ & $+2.9$ & $-17.7$ & $+23.5$
821: \\ \hline
822: $\mathbf{d}_{2,3}$ & $-11.4$ & $-15.7$ & $-1.9$ & $-10.2$ & $-18.9$ & $-18.8$
823: \\ \hline
824: $\mathbf{d}_{3,4}$ & $+11.3$ & $+0.2$ & $-15.2$ & $-9.5$ & $-12.7$ & $-16.2$
825: \\ \hline
826: $\mathbf{d}_{4,5}$ & $-4.1$ & $+6.9$ & $+18.8$ & $+6.0$ & $-15.0$ & $-12.0$
827: \\ \hline
828: $\mathbf{d}_{5,6}$ & $-2.0$ & $-3.9$ & $-2.9$ & $+3.8$ & $-15.0$ & $-16.6$
829: \\ \hline
830: $\mathbf{d}_{6,7}$ & $+2.0$ & $-1.8$ & $-6.1$ & $-2.7$ & $-1.4$ & $-3.9$ \\
831: \hline
832: $\mathbf{d}_{7,8}$ & $-2.1$ & $+1.8$ & $+2.5$ & $+2.0$ & $+1.9$ & $-5.2$ \\
833: \hline
834: $\mathbf{d}_{8,9}$ & $+0.1$ & $-0.6$ & $+2.3$ & $-4.4$ & $+25.0$ & $+16.4$
835: \\ \hline
836: $\mathbf{d}_{9,10}$ & & & $-0.9$ & $+2.2$ & $-9.7$ & $+9.6$ \\ \hline
837: $\mathbf{d}_{10,11}$ & & & $+2.0$ & $+1.0$ & $-2.9$ & $-6.6$ \\ \hline
838: $\mathbf{d}_{11,12}$ & & & $+0.8$ & $-1.1$ & $-4.7$ & $-5.4$ \\ \hline
839: $\mathbf{d}_{12,13}$ & & & & $-0.1$ & $-2.0$ & $-0.6$ \\ \hline
840: $\mathbf{d}_{13,14}$ & & & & & $+0.2$ & $-3.3$ \\ \hline
841: $\mathbf{d}_{14,15}$ & & & & & $-1.1$ & $-2.9$ \\ \hline
842: $\mathbf{d}_{15,16}$ & & & & & $+0.1$ & $+3.7$ \\ \hline
843: $\mathbf{d}_{17,18}$ & & & & & $+1.1$ & $-4.2$ \\ \hline
844: $\mathbf{d}_{18,19}$ & & & & & $-1.8$ & $+2.3$ \\ \hline
845: $\mathbf{d}_{19,20}$ & & & & & $-1.6$ & $-4.8$ \\ \hline
846: $\mathbf{d}_{20,21}$ & & & & & $-0.7$ & $+1.1$ \\ \hline
847: \end{tabular}
848: %TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{E}{\end{table}}}
849: %BeginExpansion
850: \end{table}%
851: %EndExpansion
852:
853: %TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{B}{\begin{table}[tbp] \centering}}
854: %BeginExpansion
855: \begin{table}[tbp] \centering%
856: %EndExpansion
857: \caption{Calculated CO frequencies. $\nu_{C-O}$ is for the streching mode of the CO
858: molecule and $\nu_{C-Cu}$ is between the surface and the CO-molecule. Here 't' and
859: 'b' represent the top and bridge sites (see Fig. 1). \label{key}}
860: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
861: \hline
862: \textbf{Surface} & \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{
863: \begin{tabular}{ccccc}
864: \multicolumn{5}{c}{\textbf{Vibrational Frequency (meV)}} \\
865: $\mathbf{\nu }_{C-O}$ & & & & $\mathbf{\nu }_{C-Cu}$%
866: \end{tabular}
867: } \\ \hline
868: \textbf{Cu(211)} &
869: \begin{tabular}{c}
870: 251.2 (t) \\
871: 236.2 (b)
872: \end{tabular}
873: &
874: \begin{tabular}{c}
875: 40.3 (t) \\
876: 38.4 (b)
877: \end{tabular}
878: \\ \hline
879: \textbf{Cu(221)} &
880: \begin{tabular}{c}
881: 251.0 (t) \\
882: 235.5 (b)
883: \end{tabular}
884: &
885: \begin{tabular}{c}
886: 40.1 (t) \\
887: 36.7 (b)
888: \end{tabular}
889: \\ \hline
890: \textbf{Cu(532)} &
891: \begin{tabular}{c}
892: 252.1 (t) \\
893: 235.7 (b$_{KS1}$) \\
894: 233.9 (b$_{KS2}$)
895: \end{tabular}
896: &
897: \begin{tabular}{c}
898: 41.0 (t) \\
899: 36.0 (b$_{KS1}$) \\
900: 36.4 (b$_{KS2}$)
901: \end{tabular}
902: \\ \hline
903: \end{tabular}
904: %TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{E}{\end{table}}}
905: %BeginExpansion
906: \end{table}%
907: %EndExpansion
908:
909: %TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{B}{\begin{table}[tbp] \centering}}
910: %BeginExpansion
911: \begin{table}[tbp] \centering%
912: %EndExpansion
913: \caption{Calculated workfunctions (eV) for clean Cu surface and CO adsorbed
914: surfaces along with the available experimental values in parenthesis. The experimental
915: values are taken from \cite{raval88,fall2000,arafune04}.\label{key}}
916: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
917: \hline
918: \textbf{Surface} & \textbf{(111)} & \textbf{(100)} & \textbf{(110)} &
919: \textbf{(211)} & \textbf{(221)} & \textbf{(532)} \\ \hline
920: \textbf{Clean} & $4.89\left( 4.98\right) $ & $4.63\left( 4.65\right) $ & $%
921: 4.49\left( 4.52\right) $ & $4.57$ & $4.58$ & $4.48$ \\ \hline
922: \textbf{With CO} & $4.93$ & $4.67$ & $4.68$ & $4.72$ & $4.75$ & $4.64$ \\
923: \hline
924: \end{tabular}
925: %TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{E}{\end{table}}}
926: %BeginExpansion
927: \end{table}\pagebreak%
928: %EndExpansion
929: %---------------START FIGURE 1----------------
930: \begin{figure}
931: \begin{center}
932: \includegraphics[width=12cm]{surface1.EPS}
933: \caption{
934: \label{fig: surface}
935: Top view of a) 111, b)100, C)110, d)211, e) 221 and f) 532 surface.
936: Different coverages at different sites are shown. Dark colors represents
937: top layer. Note that in 532 surface all eight atoms are non-equalent
938: and belongs to eight different layers.
939: }
940: \end{center}
941: \end{figure}
942: %---------------END FIGURE 1----------------
943: %
944: %---------------START FIGURE 2----------------
945: \begin{figure}
946: \begin{center}
947: \includegraphics[width=10cm]{eadvsbonds.EPS}
948: \caption{
949: \label{fig: ead vs no bonds}
950: Adsorption energy versus local surface coordination.
951: Solid triangles are calculated values and empty are experimental.
952: }
953: \end{center}
954: \end{figure}
955: %---------------END FIGURE 2----------------
956: %
957: %---------------START FIGURE 3----------------
958: \begin{figure}
959: \begin{center}
960: \includegraphics[width=14cm]{diff.EPS}
961: \caption{
962: \label{fig: ead vs no bonds}
963: Chosen diffusion path for CO molecule on a) Cu(111) and b) Cu(211).
964: }
965: \end{center}
966: \end{figure}
967: %---------------END FIGURE 3----------------
968: %
969: %---------------START FIGURE 4----------------
970: \begin{figure}
971: \begin{center}
972: \includegraphics[width=16cm]{Graph1.EPS}
973: \caption{
974: \label{fig: mean and variance of the conductance}
975: Diffusion of CO molecule on a) Cu(111) and b), c) Cu(211).
976: }
977: \end{center}
978: \end{figure}
979: %---------------END FIGURE 4----------------
980: %
981: %---------------START FIGURE 5----------------
982: \begin{figure}
983: \begin{center}
984: \includegraphics[width=14cm]{dos211.EPS}
985: \caption{
986: \label{fig: local dos 211}
987: Local density of state of clean
988: Cu(211) and with CO on top and bridge sites are shown in Fig. 1d.
989: }
990: \end{center}
991: \end{figure}
992: %---------------END FIGURE 5----------------
993: %
994: %---------------START FIGURE 6----------------
995: \begin{figure}
996: \begin{center}
997: \includegraphics[width=14cm]{dos221.EPS}
998: \caption{
999: \label{fig: local dos 221}
1000: Local density of state of clean
1001: Cu(221) and with CO on top and bridge sites are shown in Fig. 1e.
1002: }
1003: \end{center}
1004: \end{figure}
1005: %---------------END FIGURE 6----------------
1006: %
1007: %---------------START FIGURE 7----------------
1008: \begin{figure}
1009: \begin{center}
1010: \includegraphics[width=14cm]{dos532.EPS}
1011: \caption{
1012: \label{fig: local dos 532}
1013: Local density of state of clean
1014: Cu(532) and with CO on top (kink) and two bridge sites
1015: are shown in Fig. 1f.
1016: }
1017: \end{center}
1018: \end{figure}
1019: %---------------END FIGURE 7----------------
1020: %
1021: \end{document}
1022: