Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The predictions of a previously developed small cluster model for bound Cu ions and their interactions with CO and NO in Cu-exchanged zeolites [Schneider, W. F.; Hass, K. C.; Ramprasad, R.; Adams, J. B. J. Phys. Chem. 1996, 100, 6032] are compared to those of a series of larger, more realistic cluster models. The hypothetical case of Cu n + ( n = 0, 1, 2) coordinated to a single framework oxygen atom, described in the simplest model as CuOH 2 n +, is first examined in detail. The larger clusters considered include explicit Si or Al tetrahedral sites and are terminated by either H or OH. For nominal Cu(0) and Cu(I) oxidation states, the qualitative predictions of the original “water−ligand” model are found to be extremely robust, as are quantitative aspects of CO and NO binding. More pronounced differences between models are observed for a nominal Cu(II) oxidation state, due primarily to the tendency of the zeolitic portions of the larger clusters to reduce the Cu. The coordination of Cu n + ( n = 1, 2) to a more realistic 4-fold coordination site model is similarly examined and compared to the results for Cu(OH 2 ) 4 n + . Excellent agreement is obtained between the water−ligand and cluster models for both Cu(I) and Cu(II) in this case. The results indicate that proper treatment of the local coordination environment of a Cu ion exchanged into a zeolite is of greater importance for describing chemistry on the Cu site than is use of a “realistic” model for an individual bridge oxygen site. The implications of these results for future modeling studies of Cu zeolites are discussed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hass et al. (1996) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: