Chaos
Feedback | Help | Exit
Chaos
   
 
 
 
Previous Article
Kinetic instabilities during the NOx reduction with hydrogen on Pt crystals studied with field emission on the nanoscale
This paper reviews field emission studies of kinetic instabilities occurring during the catalytic reduction of nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) by hydrogen on three-dimensional platinum cr...
Next Article
Self-organized nanostructures in surface chemical reactions: Mechanisms and mesoscopic modeling
Nanoscale patterns can form in reactive adsorbates on catalytic surfaces as a result of attractive lateral interactions. These structures can be described within a mesoscopic theory that is derived by...

From atomistic lattice-gas models for surface reactions to hydrodynamic reaction-diffusion equations

Chaos 12, 131 (2002); doi:10.1063/1.1450566

Published 21 February 2002

You are not logged in to this journal. Log in

J. W. Evans
Ames Laboratory (USDOE) and Department of Mathematics, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa 50011

Da-Jiang Liu
Ames Laboratory (USDOE), Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa 50011

M. Tammaro
Department of Physics, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, Rhode Island 02881
Atomistic lattice-gas models for surface reactions can accurately describe spatial correlations and ordering in chemisorbed layers due to adspecies interactions or due to limited mobility of some adspecies. The primary challenge in such modeling is to describe spatiotemporal behavior in the physically relevant "hydrodynamic" regime of rapid diffusion of (at least some) reactant adspecies. For such models, we discuss the development of exact reaction-diffusion equations (RDEs) describing mesoscale spatial pattern formation in surface reactions. Formulation and implementation of these RDEs requires detailed analysis of chemical diffusion in mixed reactant adlayers, as well as development of novel hybrid and parallel simulation techniques. ©2002 American Institute of Physics.
History: Received 18 July 2001; accepted 20 December 2001; published 21 February 2002
Permalink: http://link.aip.org/link/?CHAOEH/12/131/1
BUY THIS ARTICLE   (US$28)
Download PDF (353 kB) View Cart

KEYWORDS and PACS

Keywords
PACS
  • 82.65.+r
    Physical chemistry and chemical physics Surface and interface chemistry; heterogeneous catalysis at surfaces (for temporal and spatial patterns in surface reactions, see 82.40.Np)
  • 05.50.+q
    Statistical physics, thermodynamics, and nonlinear dynamical systems Lattice theory and statistics (Ising, Potts, etc.)
  • 82.20.-w
    Physical chemistry and chemical physics Chemical kinetics and dynamics
  • YEAR: 2002

RELATED DATABASES


To view database links for this article,
you need to log in.
To view database links for this article,
you need to log in.

PUBLICATION DATA

ISSN:
1054-1500 (print)   1089-7682 (online)
Publisher:
AIP is a member of CrossRef AIP

REFERENCES (76)
View in Separate Window/Tab
For access to fully linked references, you need to log in. For access to fully linked references, you need to Log in.
  1. G. Ertl, Adv. Catal. 37, 213 (1991);
  2. R. Imbihl, Prog. Surf. Sci. 44, 185 (1993).
  3. M. Eiswirth and G. Ertl, in Chemical Waves and Patterns, edited by R. Kapral and K. Showalter (Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1994);
  4. R. Imbihl and G. Ertl, Chem. Rev. 95, 697 (1995).
  5. T. Engel and G. Ertl, Adv. Catal. 28, 1 (1979).
  6. L. F. Razon and R. A. Schmitz, Catal. Rev. Sci. Eng. 28, 89 (1986).
  7. M. Berdau, G. G. Yelenin, A. Karpowicz, M. Ehsasi, K. Christmann, and J. H. Block, J. Chem. Phys. 110, 11551 (1999).
  8. N. Gottschalk, F. Mertens, M. Eiswirth, and R. Imbihl, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 3483 (1994)
    9. is a rare example utilizing nonconstant diffusion coefficients to describe the influence of surface reconstruction.
  9. R. Gomer, Rep. Prog. Phys. 53, 917 (1990).
  10. H. Spohn, Large Scale Dynamics in Interacting Particle Systems (Springer, Berlin, 1991).
  11. M. Tammaro and J. W. Evans, J. Chem. Phys. 108, 762 (1998).
  12. M. Tammaro and J. W. Evans, J. Chem. Phys. 108, 7795 (1998).
  13. D.-J. Liu and J. W. Evans, J. Chem. Phys. 113, 10252 (2000).
  14. W. Swiech, B. Rausenberger, R. Imbihl, J. W. Evans, C. S. Rastomjee, W. Engel, A. K. Schmid, A. M. Bradshaw, and E. Zeitler, Surf. Sci. 307–309, 138 (1994).
  15. A. S. Mikhailov and G. Ertl, Chem. Phys. Lett. 238, 104 (1995);
    16. V. P. Zhdanov, ibid. 267, 397 (1997).
  16. M. Hildebrand and A. S. Mikhailov, J. Phys. Chem. 100, 19089 (1996);
    17. M. Hildebrand, A. S. Mikhailov, and G. Ertl, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 2602 (1998);
    M. Hildebrand and A. S. Mikhailov, J. Stat. Phys. 101, 599 (2000).
  17. W. H. Weinberg, Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem. 34, 217 (1983);
    18. K. Binder and D. P. Landau, Adv. Chem. Phys. 26, 91 (1989).
  18. R. M. Ziff, E. Gulari, and Y. Barshad, Phys. Rev. Lett. 56, 2553 (1986).
  19. J. W. Evans, J. Chem. Phys. 97, 572 (1992);
    20. 98, 2463 (1993).
  20. J. W. Evans and T. R. Ray, Phys. Rev. E 50, 4302 (1994).
  21. R. H. Goodman, D. S. Graff, L. M. Sander, P. Leroux-Hugon, and E. Clement, Phys. Rev. E 52, 5904 (1995);
    22. E. V. Albano, ibid. 55, 7144 (1997).
  22. H. C. Kang, T. A. Jachimowiski, and W. H. Weinberg, J. Chem. Phys. 93, 1418 (1990);
    23. K. A. Fichthorn and W. H. Weinberg, ibid. 95, 1090 (1991).
  23. V. P. Zhdanov and B. Kasemo, Surf. Sci. 412/413, 527 (1998).
  24. S. Volkening and J. Wintterlin, J. Chem. Phys. 114, 6382 (2001).
  25. M. Silverberg and A. Ben-Shaul, J. Chem. Phys. 87, 3178 (1989);
    26. Chem. Phys. Lett. 134, 491 (1987);
    J. Chem. Phys. 87, 3178 (1987);
    M. Silverberg, A. Ben-Shaul, and F. Rebentrost, ibid. 83, 6501 (1985).
  26. M. Tammaro, M. Sabella, and J. W. Evans, J. Chem. Phys. 103, 10277 (1995).
  27. E. W. James, C. Song, and J. W. Evans, J. Chem. Phys. 111, 6579 (1999).
  28. A. P. J. Jansen and J. J. Lukkien, Catal. Today 53, 259 (1999).
  29. More generally, one could include hops to nearest-neighbor (NN) sites with rate h, and to next NN sites with rate h[prime] (likely much smaller than h), etc.
  30. M. Dumont, P. Dufour, B. Sente, and R. Daggonier, J. Catal. 122, 95 (1990).
  31. Y. Suchorski, J. Beben, E. W. James, J. W. Evans, and R. Imbihl, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 1907 (1999);
    32. Y. Suchorski, J. Beben, R. Imbihl, E. W. James, D.-J. Liu, and J. W. Evans, Phys. Rev. B 63, 165417 (2001).
  32. D.-J. Liu and J. W. Evans, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 955 (2000).
  33. C. R. Brundle, R. J. Behm, and J. A. Barker, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A 2, 1038 (1984);
    34. S.-L. Chang and P. A. Thiel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 296 (1987).
  34. For d = 0, the steady-state or bifurcation diagram is somewhat anomalous, displaying a transcritical bifurcation at PCO = 0, but this does not affect the issues of interest here. In fact, the existence of this "absorbing" state, in the language of Markov processes, actually facilitates precise analysis of poisoning transitions.
  35. A. S. Mikhailov, Foundations of Synergetics I (Springer, Berlin, 1990).
  36. D.-J. Liu and J. W. Evans (unpublished). For our modified model with d = 0 and k = 1, where the CO-poisoning transition changes from discontinuous to continuous, for small h.
  37. J. W. Evans and M. S. Miesch, Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 833 (1991).
  38. Extremely weak metastability appears in the standard model (for finite k, or in the ZGB model with k = [infinity]) when h = 0. See Refs. 18 and 35 and
    39. R. A. Monetti and E. V. Albano, J. Phys. A 34, 1103 (2001).
  39. J. W. Evans and M. Tammaro, in Computer Simulation Studies in Condensed Matter Physics XI, edited by D. P. Landau and H.-B. Schuettler (Springer, Berlin, 1999), p. 103;
    40. Phys. Rev. E 57, 5087 (1998).
  40. One can show that a discrete version of MF RDEs, with "simple" diffusive coupling described by a discretized Laplacian, produces a weaker shift of the form deltaP*(h)~1/h, as h-->[infinity].
  41. A precise analysis is possible for d = 0 when the metastable state is "absorbing." Then, one can unambiguously follow the fate of the embedded blob (whereas for d>0, a blob could disappear and spontaneously reappear). Also, for d = 0, perpetual propagation of stable reactive state into inactive state occurs for PCO<P* (whereas the inactive state eventually breaks down for d>0).
  42. A heuristic treatment of the relationship between Rc and the lifetime can be found in
    43. V. P. Zhdanov, Phys. Rev. E 50, 760 (1994).
    See also E. V. Albano and J. Marro, J. Chem. Phys. 113, 10279 (2000).
  43. J. W. Evans, Langmuir 7, 2514 (1991).
  44. B. Brosilow and R. M. Ziff, Phys. Rev. A 46, 4534 (1992).
  45. T. Tome and R. Dickman, Phys. Rev. E 47, 948 (1993).
  46. J. W. Evans and M. Sabella, Trends Stat. Phys. 1, 107 (1994).
  47. U. Ebert and W. van Saarloos, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 1650 (1998).
  48. Significant values of xi relative to Rc produce substantial smearing of [sans-serif P](R)—Ref. 18. KPZ analysis also shows that xi0 is small on a length scale Lc, for large h (Ref. 9).
  49. V. P. Zhdanov, Surf. Sci. 194, 1 (1988).
  50. R. M. Ziff and B. Brosilow, Phys. Rev. A 46, 4560 (1992).
  51. F. H. Ree and D. A. Chesnut, J. Chem. Phys. 45, 3983 (1966).
  52. D.-J. Liu and J. W. Evans, Phys. Rev. B 62, 2134 (2000).
  53. E. W. James, D.-J. Liu, and J. W. Evans (unpublished).
  54. One has SO2 = [thetaE/(1–thetaO)]2S8, where S8[approximate][(1–2thetaO)/(1–thetaO)]8 is the pair approximation for the probability of an adsorption ensemble of eight sites not occupied by O(ads)—Ref. 25.
  55. W. E. Schiesser, The Numerical Methods of Lines (Academic, San Diego, 1991).
  56. Compare P*([infinity]) = 0.397 with P–([infinity]) = 0, POpoison = 0.378, and P+([infinity]) = 0.500 (standard model).
  57. Compare P*([infinity]) = 0.325 with P–([infinity]) = 0 and P+([infinity]) = 0.360 (modified model).
  58. R. Kutner and K. W. Kehr, Philos. Mag. A 48, 199 (1983).
  59. A. Bunde and S. Havlin, in Fractals and Disordered Systems, edited by A. Bunde and S. Havlin (Springer, Berlin, 1991), Chaps. 2 and 3.
  60. P. G. de Gennes, Recherche 7, 919 (1976).
  61. T. M. Nieuwenhuizen, P. F. J. van Velthoven, and M. H. Ernst, Phys. Rev. Lett. 57, 2477 (1986).
  62. One can write down a rate equation for the population of "monomers" which are created by reaction of one of the constituent B's of a just deposited "dimer," and destroyed by reaction. For the standard model, the analysis in Ref. 9 incorrectly set a1 = pi–1, and a1 reported in Ref. 11 is also incorrect.
  63. G. A. Somorjai, Introduction to Surface Chemistry and Catalysis (Wiley, New York, 1994).
  64. J. Wintterlin, Adv. Catal. 45, 131 (2000).
  65. E. M. Stuve, R. J. Madix, and C. R. Brundle, Surf. Sci. 146, 155 (1984).
  66. B. N. J. Persson, Surf. Sci. Rep. 15, 1 (1992).
  67. D.-J. Liu and J. W. Evans, J. Chem. Phys. 114, 10977 (2001).
  68. M. Xu, J. Liu, and F. Zaera, J. Chem. Phys. 104, 8825 (1996).
  69. See Appendix F of Ref. 11.
  70. Th. Fink, J.-P. Dath, M. R. Bassett, R. Imbihl, and G. Ertl, Surf. Sci. 245, 96 (1991).
  71. J. Riordan, C. R. Doering, and D. ben-Avraham, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 565 (1995);
    72. J. Mai, I. M. Sokolov, and A. Blumen, ibid. 77, 4462 (1996);
    D. A. Kessler, Z. Ner, and L. M. Sander, Phys. Rev. E 58, 107 (1998).
  72. V. P. Zhdanov and B. Kasemo, Surf. Sci. Rep. 20, 111 (1994).
  73. A. V. Zhdanova, Phys. Rev. B 63, 153410 (2001).
  74. N. G. Van Kampen, Stochastic Processes in Physics and Chemistry (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1981).
  75. R. A. Tahir-Kheli and R. J. Elliot, Phys. Rev. B 27, 844 (1983).
  76. K. W. Kehr, K. Binder, and S. M. Reulin, Phys. Rev. B 39, 4891 (1989).
  77. M. Tammaro and J. W. Evans (unpublished) corrects the form proposed in
    78. M. Tammaro and J. W. Evans, Surf. Sci. Lett. 395, L207 (1998) for DAA when hB/hA>1.
  78. J. Quastel, Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 45, 623 (1992).

CITING ARTICLES
For access to citing articles, you need to log in.
For access to citing articles, you need to Log in.


Copyright © American Institute of Physics