895
J. Chem. Phys., Vol. 117, No. 2, 8 July 2002
COϩO2 reaction on Pt͕110͖
also indicated that there are two different sites for CO ad-
sorption in presence of oxygen. We propose that these may
be assigned to CO molecules which adsorb atop hollow and
ridge Pt atoms on the (1ϫ2) surface; molecules occupying
these two sites may then be rendered inequivalent in terms of
oxygen-induced chemical shifts by the specific adsorption
sites of the O atoms, probably on the ͕111͖-like trough sides
of this missing-row reconstructed surface. We should per-
haps note here, however, that under reaction conditions there
was no evidence of co-occupation of these two states. The
reason for this is not known, but may be related to the sig-
nificantly higher temperature under reaction conditions
which may cause one of these sites to be more strongly fa-
vored.
Using the results of these calibration experiments, how-
ever, we have also been able to interpret the results of similar
studies of the surface under reaction conditions, IRAS pro-
viding primary information on the CO coverage and the local
coordination site, while PEEM has provided information on
the oxygen coverages. Changes on the surface have been
related directly to the CO2 production rate under both steady
state and oscillatory reaction conditions. These measure-
ments allow us to clearly exclude some processes which
have previously been considered in trying to understand this
system. For example, we find no evidence for an oxide phase
or subsurface oxygen, nor for any local CO coordination site
other than atop ͑such a bridge͒.
The CO and oxygen coverages on the Pt͕110͖ surface
when undergoing the CO oxidation reaction in both low and
high reaction rate branches have been determined. In the low
rate branch the surface has a high CO coverage and low
oxygen coverage (⌰COϭ0.5Ϯ0.1 ML, ⌰Oϭ0.03Ϯ0.01)
which must therefore be in the (1ϫ1) unreconstructed
phase. By contrast, under high reaction rate branch condi-
tions, the surface has a high oxygen coverage and low CO
coverage (⌰COϭ0.05Ϯ0.03 ML, ⌰Oϭ0.3–0.7 ML) which
must therefore be in the reconstructed (1ϫ2) phase. The
states observed to make up the high and low reaction
branches are responsible for the two main phases observed
during pattern formation. These findings are entirely consis-
tent with the site blocking and reconstruction model of the
reaction.2,18,19,60,67
Based on this new information and the prior models of
the system which are consistent with it, we can relate the two
states observed in the hysteresis and in the spatiotemporal
pattern formation exhibited by this system as observed by
PEEM, IRAS, and LEEM. The high rate phase observed in
the ͑spatio-͒temporal pattern formation is an oxygenated
(1ϫ2) surface; the low rate corresponds to regions of
(1ϫ1) surface with a high ͑0.5 ML͒ coverage of CO. The
key processes are the role of high CO coverages in blocking
sites for O2 dissociation and the influence of the surface
reconstruction and unreconstruction.2,15,18,19,60,67 It appears
that oxygen dissociation and adsorption is inhibited when
data are inconsistent with the heterogeneous nucleation and
growth of islands of this coverage.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank F. Meißen and A.
Patchett for their close cooperation and useful discussions
and likewise the group of H. H. Rotermund.
1 R. Imbihl and G. Ertl, Chem. Rev. 95, 697 ͑1995͒.
2 G. Ertl, Surf. Sci. 299Õ300, 742 ͑1994͒.
3 H. H. Rotermund, Surf. Sci. Rep. 29, 265 ͑1997͒.
4 Oscillations and Traveling Waves in Chemical Systems, edited by R. J.
Field and M. Burger ͑Wiley, New York, 1985͒.
5 I. Ferino and E. Rombi, Catal. Today 52, 291 ͑1999͒.
6 M. Eiswirth and G. Ertl, Surf. Sci. 177, 90 ͑1986͒.
7
¨
M. Eiswirth, Doctorate thesis, University of Munchen, 1987.
8 S. Ladas, R. Imbihl, and G. Ertl, Surf. Sci. 198, 42 ͑1988͒.
9 W. Tappe, U. Korte, and G. Meyer-Ehmsen, Surf. Sci. 388, 162 ͑1997͒.
10 G. Ertl, Science 254, 1750 ͑1991͒.
11 S. Jakubith, H.-H. Rotermund, W. Engel, A. von Oertzen, and G. Ertl,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 65, 3013 ͑1990͒.
12 A. von Oertzen, A. S. Mikhailov, H. H. Rotermund, and G. Ertl, J. Phys.
Chem. B 102, 4966 ͑1998͒.
13 K. C. Rose, D. Battogtokh, A. Mikhailov, R. Imbihl, W. Engel, and A. M.
Bradshaw, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 3582 ͑1996͒.
14 K. C. Rose, B. Berton, R. Imbihl, W. Engel, and A. M. Bradshaw, Phys.
Rev. Lett. 79, 3427 ͑1997͒.
15 F. Meißen, A. J. Patchett, W. Engel, A. M. Bradshaw, and R. Imbihl
͑unpublished͒.
16 A. J. Patchett, F. Meißben, W. Engel, R. Imbihl, and A. M. Bradshaw,
Surf. Sci. 454–456, 341 ͑2000͒.
17 M. P. Cox, G. Ertl, and R. Imbihl, Phys. Rev. Lett. 54, 1725 ͑1985͒.
18 H. P. Bonzel and R. Ku, Surf. Sci. 33, 91 ͑1972͒.
19 H. P. Bonzel and R. Ku, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. 9, 663 ͑1972͒.
20 G. S. Yablonskii and V. I. Elokhin, in Perspectives in Catalysis, edited by
J. A. Thomas and K. I. Zamaev ͑Blackwell Scientific, Boston, 1994͒.
21 B. C. Sales, J. E. Turner, and M. B. Maple, Surf. Sci. 114, 381 ͑1982͒.
22 N. A. Collins, S. Sunaresan, and Y. J. Chabal, Surf. Sci. 180, 272 ͑1987͒.
23 J. H. Miners, R. Martin, P. Gardner, R. Nalezinski, and A. M. Bradshaw,
Surf. Sci. 377–379, 791 ͑1997͒.
24 A. M. Bradshaw and E. Schweizer, Adv. Spectrosc. ͑N.Y.͒ 23, 413 ͑1988͒.
25 M. Scheffler, Surf. Sci. 81, 562 ͑1979͒.
26 B. N. J. Persson and R. Ryberg, Phys. Rev. B 24, 6954 ͑1981͒.
27 R. K. Sharma, W. A. Brown, and D. A. King, Surf. Sci. 414, 68 ͑1998͒.
28 J. W. Gadzuk and A. C. Luntz, Surf. Sci. 144, 429 ͑1984͒.
29 W. Engel, M. E. Kordesch, H. H. Rotermund, S. Kubala, and A. von
Oetzen, Ultramicroscopy 36, 148 ͑1991͒.
30
¨
¨
A. von Oertzen, Doctorate thesis, Frei-Universitat, Berlin, 1992.
31 S. Cerasari, Doctorate thesis, Frei-Universitat, Berlin, 2000 ͑http://
32 S. Cerasari, A. von Oertzen, and H. H. Rotermund ͑unpublished͒.
33 A. von Oertzen, H. H. Rotermund, and S. Nettesheim, Surf. Sci. 311, 322
͑1994͒.
34 P. Fery, W. Moritz, and D. Wolf, Phys. Rev. B 38, 7275 ͑1988͒.
35 C. M. Comrie and R. M. Lambert, J. Chem. Soc., Faraday Trans. 72, 1659
͑1976͒.
36 R. Imbihl, S. Ladas, and G. Ertl, Surf. Sci. 206, L903 ͑1988͒.
37 T. Gritsch, D. Coulman, R. J. Behm, and G. Ertl, Phys. Rev. Lett. 63, 1086
͑1989͒.
38 B. E. Hayden, A. W. Robinson, and P. M. Tucker, Surf. Sci. 192, 163
͑1987͒.
39 P. Hofmann, S. R. Bare, and D. A. King, Surf. Sci. 117, 245 ͑1982͒.
40 S. Ferrer and H. P. Bonzel, Surf. Sci. 119, 234 ͑1982͒.
41 P. Hofmann, S. R. Bare, N. V. Richardson, and D. A. King, Solid State
Commun. 42, 645 ͑1982͒.
42 M. Nowicki, A. Emundts, G. Pirug, and H. P. Bonzel, Surf. Sci. 478, 180
͑2001͒.
⌰
⌰
CO(local)Ͼ0.3 ML and that the reaction is poisoned when
CO(local)ϭ0.5 ML; moreover, homogeneous nucleation of
43 M. I. Ban, M. A. van Hove, and G. A. Somorjai, Surf. Sci. 185, 355
͑1987͒.
the unreconstructed (1ϫ1) phase occurs at ⌰CO(local)
ϭ0.2 ML and locally these small islands are thought to have
a coverage of CO of 0.5 ML. Notice, however, that our IRAS
44 R. M. Hammaker, S. A. Francis, and R. P. Eischens, Spectrochim. Acta 21,
1295 ͑1965͒.
45 G. D. Mahan and A. A. Lucas, J. Chem. Phys. 68, 1344 ͑1978͒.