Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The catalytic CO methanation reaction on Ni/CeO 2 (111) systems is known to depend on Ni coverage: at medium and large coverages, Ni/CeO 2 (111) surfaces are able to catalyze methane production, whereas at small coverage they become efficient catalysts for the water–gas shift reaction. Electronic structure, geometries, and the adsorption of C and CO on small Ni n ( n = 1 and 4) particles deposited on CeO 2 (111) have been studied using density functional theory (DFT) with the DFT+U approach and compared with Ni(111) and CeO 2 (111). The most stable Ni 4 cluster has a pyramidal structure (pyr-Ni 4 ), and a planar rhombohedral structure (r-Ni 4 ) is less stable by ∼0.2 eV. Metallic Ni particles are partially oxidized (Ni 2+ /Ni 1+ ) upon deposition on the ceria support, which is partially reduced. C species are strongly bound on Ni(111), whereas on Ni/CeO 2 (111), and on the bare support, oxidative adsorption (C + CeO 2 → CO + CeO 2– x ) is mostly preferred, opening a Mars–van Krevelen mechanism to prevent coke formation. The exothermicity of nonoxidative adsorption of C on nickel sites follows the trend: Ni 1 /CeO 2 (111) < pyr-Ni 4 /CeO 2 (111) < Ni(111). On these systems, CO adsorption is nonoxidative. The C–O bond strength follows the inverse trend of the nonoxidative adsorption of C: Ni(111) < pyr-Ni 4 /CeO 2 (111) < Ni 1 /CeO 2 (111). The stronger C–O bond found for the CO/Ni 1 /CeO 2 (111) system compared with CO/Ni(111) provides an explanation of the Ni coverage dependence reported for the CO methanation reaction on Ni/CeO 2 (111) catalysts. The strong electronic perturbations in the Ni 1 adatoms produce a drastic change in their chemical properties.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Carrasco et al. (2013) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: