Adsorption geometries of CO on Cu (211)

Journal of Chemical Physics

Volumn 110, Issue 21, 1999, Pages 10522-10525

  Radnik, J ^a   Ernst, H J ^a  

^a CEA SACLAY   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0000151305     PISSN: 00219606     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1063/1.478983     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. A. De Koster, A. P. Jansen, R. A. van Santen, and J. J. C. Gerlings, Faraday Discuss. Chem. Soc. 87, 263 (1989).
2. J. Xu and J. T. Yates, Jr., J. Chem. Phys. 99, 725 (1993).
3. S. M. Davis and G. A. Somorjai, in The Chemical Physics of Solid Surfaces, edited by D. A. King and D. A. Woodruff (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1982), Vol. 4.
4. J. C. Campazona, in The Chemical Properties of Solid Surfaces and Heterogenous Catalysis, edited by D. A. King and D. P. Woodruff (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1990), Vol. 3, Part A.
5. H. Wagner, in Springer Tracts in Modern Physics, edited by G. Hoehler (Springer, Berlin, 1987).
6. G. Meyer, B. Neu, and K.-H. Rieder, Chem. Phys. Lett. 240, 379 (1995);
7. G. Meyer, S. Zophel, and K.-H. Rieder, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 2113 (1996).
8. U. Svenson and G. Witte (unpublished).
9. J. Braun, A. P. Graham, F. Hofmann, W. Silvestri, J. P. Toennies, and G. Witte, J. Chem. Phys. 105, 3258 (1996).
10. G. Ertl and J. Küppers, Low Energy Electrons and Surface Chemistry (VCH, Weinheim, 1985);
11. H. Ibach and D. L. Mills, Electron Energy Loss Spectroscopy and Surface Vibrations (Academic, New York, 1982).
12. T. T. Nguyen and N. Sheppard, in Advances in IR and Raman Spectroscopy, edited by R. F. Hester, R. H. J. Clark (Heyden, London, 1978), Vol. 5.
13. L. Surnev, Z. Xu, and J. T. Yates, Surf. Sci. 201, 1 (1988);
14. L. Becker et al., Phys. Rev. B 47, 9710 (1993);
15. L. D. Mapledoram et al., Chem. Phys. Lett. 228, 527 (1994).
16. P. Schilbe, D. Farias, and K.-H. Rieder, Chem. Phys. Lett. 281, 366 (1997).
17. Gossmann electron optics, Erlangen, Germany.
18. The angle between the macroscopic surface plane and the (111) terrace is 19.5° for a Cu (211) surface. On the basis of the dipole scattering selection rules, the EELS analysis does not allow to identify, if the CO axis stands perpendicular to the terrace or to the macroscopic surface plane.
19. -1) to the stretch vibration of CO adsorbed in on-top sites. In our experiment, the coverage of 0.5 ML has been identified with the maximum intensity of this energy loss, which coincides with the appearance of an additional loss reflecting the population of bridge sites.
20. We note that the frustrated translation and rotation are as well dipole active modes, which we did not observe in our spectra, however. The detection of the former (Ref. 8) is certainly impossible with the present resolution of our spectrometer. The associated loss of the latter, whose frequency is, in comparison with other systems, expected to lie in the range confined between 30 and 35 meV, is presumably burned in the feet of the elastic and the peak at 43.9 meV (see Fig. 2).
21. R. Raval, S. F. Parker, M. E. Pemble, P. Hollins, J. Pritchard, and M. A. Chesters, Surf. Sci. 203, 353 (1988).
22. N. D. Shinn, M. Trenary, M. R. McClellan, and T. R. McFeely, J. Chem. Phys. 75, 3142 (1981).
23. H. Hopster and H. Ibach, Surf. Sci. 77, 109 (1978).
24. Ph. Hofmann, K.-M. Schindler, S. Bao, A. M. Bradshaw, and D. P. Woodruff, Nature (London) 368, 131 (1994).