Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
We present a quantum mechanics/molecular mechanics (QM/MM) analysis of interaction of Cu 1 - 5 clusters with nondefect and metal-vacancy defect versions of T6-Ti and T6-Si sites in TS-1. The clusters inside the TS-1 pores are significantly stabilized due to long-range interactions such as van der Waals forces. We predict stronger adsorption of Cu clusters on Ti sites versus that on Si sites and on defect sites versus that on nondefect sites. A graph of adsorption energy (Δ E ads ) versus cluster size ( n ) shows a peak around n = 3. While these findings are consistent with previous results on Au clusters, we have identified significant differences in the Au/TS-1 and Cu/TS-1 systems, especially in the charge-transfer interactions. Moreover, the binding configurations and cluster−support interactions are different in Cu/Ti and Cu/Si systems. While Cu 1 - 5 clusters adsorbed on Si sites are negatively charged, the Cu 3 and Cu 5 clusters adsorbed on Ti sites are significantly positively charged. Due to relatively low ionization potential, these clusters lose electron density to cationic Ti sites through negatively charged lattice oxygens. The attractive coulomb interactions between positively charged Cu atoms and negatively charged lattice oxygens are consistent with the X 2 O 2 and X 3 O 3 (X m O n: m metal atoms and n oxygen atoms) binding configurations of Cu 3 /Cu 5 clusters adsorbed on Ti sites, which make the lattice-oxygen-mediated charge-transfer energetically favorable. The X 1 O n ( n = 1 or 2) binding configurations are preferred by the Cu 1 - 5 clusters adsorbed on Si sites and also by the Au 1 - 5 clusters adsorbed on both Ti and Si sites. Because the Au−O interactions are weaker than the Cu−O interactions, the X 2 O 2 and X 3 O 3 binding configurations are not preferred by the Au 3 /Au 5 clusters adsorbed on Ti sites. The differences in cluster−support interactions in Cu/Ti versus Cu/Si and Au/Ti versus Cu/Ti systems can be explained on the basis of geometric and electrostatic effects.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Joshi et al. (2007) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: