Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T05:02:17.143Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Active Sites in Oxide-Promoted Metal Catalysts – Evidence for the Significance of Perimeter Sites in AlOx and MnOx/Ni(lll) Catalysts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2011

Yong-Bo Zhao ,
Tzer-Shen Lin  and
Yip-Wah Chung
Yong-Bo Zhao
Affiliation:
Northwestern University, Department of Materials Science and Engineering, and Catalysis Center, Evanston, Illinois 60208
Tzer-Shen Lin
Affiliation:
Northwestern University, Department of Materials Science and Engineering, and Catalysis Center, Evanston, Illinois 60208
Yip-Wah Chung
Affiliation:
Northwestern University, Department of Materials Science and Engineering, and Catalysis Center, Evanston, Illinois 60208
Get access

Abstract

MnOx (0.2 < × < 0.5) and AlOx (0.5 < × < 1.1) /Ni(lll) model catalysts were prepared by depositing the oxides onto clean Ni(111) surfaces under ultrahigh vacuum conditions, with the average oxide coverage varying from 0 to 1.3 monolayers (ML) for MnOx and 0 to 2.8 ML for AlOx. CO chemisorption over these catalysts at 200 K was used to titrate different adsorption sites. Thermal desorption showed the usual prominent CO desorption peak at 415 K from the clean Ni(111) surface. This 415 K peak decreases with increasing oxide coverage in an almost linear fashion, indicating a siteblocking effect by the oxide. At the same time, a new thermal desorption peak appears at 305 K from MnOx/Ni(111) and 300 K from AlOx/Ni(111), reaching maximum intensity at some intermediate oxide coverage. For MnOx/Ni(111), this coincides with the appearance of a new C-0 stretching mode at 1620 cm−1, which disappears upon heating the surface to 325 K for a few minutes, suggesting that both the 305 K thermal desorption peak and the 1620 cm−1 loss peak represent the same adsorbed CO state. This is attributed to CO adsorbed on MnOx/Ni perimeter sites. Results from Monte Carlo simulation and scanning tunneling microscopy are presented and compared with CO chemisorption data. The significance of perimeter sites in strong metal-support interaction is discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 111: Symposium O – Microstructure and Properties of Catalysts , 1987 , 435
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Tauster, S.J., Fung, S.C. and Garten, R.L., J.Amer.Chem.Soc. 100, 170 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Takatani, S. and Chung, Y.W., J.Catal. 90, 75 (1984).Google Scholar
3. Dwyer, D.J., Cameron, S.D. and Gland, J., Surf.Sci. 195, 430 (1985).Google Scholar
4. Zhao, Y.B. and Chung, Y.W., J.Catal. 106, 369 (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Vannice, M.A. and Garten, R.L., J.Catal. 56, 29 (1979).Google Scholar
6. Vannice, M.A., Wang, S-Y. and Moon, S.H., J.Catal. 71, 152 (1981).Google Scholar
7. Demmin, R.A., Ko, C.S. and Gorte, R.J., in “Strong Metal-Support Interactions”, ACS Symposium Series 298, p.48.Amer.Chem.Soc., Washington, DC.Google Scholar
8. Chung, Y.W., Xiong, G.X. and Kao, C.C., J.Catal. 85, 237 (1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Jiang, X.Z., Hayden, T.F. and Dummesic, J.A., J.Catal. 83, 168 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Hicks, R.F., Yen, Q.J. and Bell, A.T., J.Catal. 89, 498 (1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Sun, Y.-M., Belton, D.N. and White, J.M., J.Phys.Chem. 90, 5178 (1986).Google Scholar
12. Chung, Y.W. and Zhao, Y.B., in “Strong Metal-Support Interactions”, ACS Symposium Series 298, p.54.Amer.Chem.Soc., Washington, DC.Google Scholar
13. Burch, R., and Flambard, A.R., J.Catal. 78, 389 (1982).Google Scholar
14. Vannice, M.A. and Sudhakar, C., J.Phys.Chem. 88, 2429 (1984).Google Scholar
15. Erley, W., Wagner, H. and Ibach, H., Surf.Sci. 80, 612 (1979).Google Scholar
16. Campuzano, J.C. and Greenler, R.G., Surf.Sci. 83, 301 (1979).Google Scholar
17. Erley, W., Ibach, H., Lehwald, S. and Wagner, H., Surf.Sci. 83, 585 (1979).Google Scholar
18. Ichikawa, M. and Fukushima, T., J.Phys.Chem. 89, 1564 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. Sachtler, W.M.H., Shriver, D.F., Hollenberg, W.B. and Lang, , A.F., J.Catal. 92, 429 (1985).Google Scholar
20. Vannice, M.A. and Twu, C.C., J.Catal. 82, 213 (1983).Google Scholar
21. Greenlief, C.M., White, J.M., Ko, C.S. and Gorte, R.J., R.J., J.Phys.Chem. 89, 5025 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22. Dwyer, D.J., Robbins, J.L., Cameron, S.D., Dudash, N. and Hardenbegh, J., in “Strong Metal-Support Interactions”, ACS Symposium Series 298, p.21.Amer.Chem.Soc., Washington, DC.Google Scholar