Surface Science: Foundations of Catalysis and
Nanoscience
List of corrections to first printing
In the Acknowledgements
I would also like to acknowledge Tom Beebe, George Darling, Gehard
Ertl, Peter Maitlis, Hari Manoharan, David Walton and Anja Wellner for
providing figures. Thanks to Scott Anderson, Eric Borguet, Laura Ford,
SoonKu Hong, Weixin Huang, Lynne Koker, David Mills and Pat Thiel for
bringing various
typographical errors to my attention.
Chapter 1
Fig. 1.15 Can't see state a.
p. 19 Should read:
In Fig. 1.13(a) the metal has donated charge to the semiconductor
spacecharge region. The enhanced charge density in the spacecharge
region corresponds to an accumulation layer. In Fig. 1.13(b) charge
transfer has occurred in the opposite direction. Because the electron
density in this region is lower than in the bulk, this type of
spacecharge region is know as a depletion layer.
p. 26
1.2. Redraw Fig. 1.13 for a ptype semiconductor.[17, 19]
Note correction to references.
p. 27
(1.31)
Note typo in Eq (1.31). The variable should be N_{
A} (Avagadro constant) not N and m should
be M, the molar mass.
1.6. The surface Debye temperature of Pt(100) is 110
K. Take the definition of melting to be when the fractional
displacement relative to the lattice constant is equal to ~8.3%
(Lindemann criterion [28, 29]). What is the surface melting temperature
of Pt(100)? What is the implication of a surface that
melts at a lower temperature than the bulk?
NB: The Lindemann criterion is 8.3% not 25% as found in the book. Note
new references.
[28] JJ Gilvarry, Phys. Rev. 102 (1956) 308.
[29] FA Lindemann, Phys. Z. 11 (1910) 609.
Chapter 2
p. 48 Eqs. (2.21) and (2.22)
should have a –1 in the numerator.
(2.21)
(2.22)
p. 51. The caption to Fig. 2.16 is uniquely inconsistent with the
figure. It should read:
Fig. 2.16 Some commonly observed adsorbate structures on lowindex
facecentred cubitc(fcc) planes. (a) fcc(111), (i) (1x1), (ii) (2x2),
(iii) (√3x√3). (b) (i) fcc(100)–c(2x2), (ii) fcc(110)–c(2x2). (c) (i)
fcc(100)–(2x2), (ii) fcc(110)–(2x1).
p. 74
(2.66)
(2.67)
Chapter 3
(3.26)
Eq. (3.26) has been corrected to put the square
in the proper place.
(3.30)
In Exercise 3.8, typo refers to Exercise 3.1 instead of 3.7.
In Exercise 3.8, Eq. (3.36) should read
(3.36)
In Exercise 3.14, typo in the text reads S_{
d} instead of s_{o}
and a minus sign is missing in the exponential term.
Note correction to Eq. (3.36). Note also that this neglects the
contribution of zeropoint energy to the vibrational energy.
There is a typo in Table 3.7 in the book. Most of the values for Cu and
Si have been switched.
Table 3.7
T_{s} (K)

<E_{rot}
> (K)

T_{vib} (K)

<E_{trans}
> (K)

E_{ads} (eV)

D_{2}/Cu(111): 925

1020

1820

3360

0.5

D_{2}/Si(100): 780

330

1700

960

0.8

(3.41)
Eq. (3.41) has been corrected such that v is raised to the ith
power.
Chapter 4
pp. 179–180. The discussion should simply be improved. This correction
messes with the subsequent equation numbers.
To define more precisely what we mean by the activation energy and how
it relates to the PES, we turn to Fig. 4.5. First we note, as shown by
Fowler and Guggenheim [1], that the activation energy, in this case E_{des}, is given by the
difference between the mean energy of the reactants 〈E〉_{R} and the mean energy
of the molecules in the transition state 〈E〉_{‡}
[1] R. H. Fowler and E. A. Guggenheim, Statistical Thermodynamics.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1939.
(4.52)
Since both 〈E〉_{R} and
〈E〉_{‡} are
temperature dependent, E_{des}
is, in principle, also temperature dependent. The classical
barrier height on the PES is . E_{des}
is not simply related to . As can be seen in Fig. 4.5, the
two energies are identical at 0 K. At any other temperature, E_{des} and are
different, though they likely have similar values.
To account for this expected temperature dependence, it is useful to
introduce a more general mathematical definition of the activation
energy of desorption
. (4.53)
Frequently it is found that Eq. (4.53) obeys the form
. (4.54)
p. 185 "The coverage at time t is given by integrating Eq. (4.61) (see
also Exercise 4.2)
(4.63)
where ε is the exposure. The coverage is linearly proportional to the
exposure only if the sticking coefficient is constant as a function of
coverage, which is often true at very low coverage, for metal on metal
adsorption or condensation onto multilayer films."
p. 197–198 "Firstorder desorption leads to asymmetric peaks.
Secondorder desorption leads to symmetric peaks."
p. 199 In Fig 4.14(d), the simulations have been properly calculated
but have been labeled in reverse order. They should appear as
they do below.
p. 203
4.6 Consider precursor mediated adsorption through an equilibrated
precursor state. The activation barrier to desorption out of the
precursor is E_{des}
and the activation barrier separating the precursor from the
chemisorbed state is E_{a}.
Prove mathematically that in precursor mediated adsorption, if E_{des} > E_{a}, increasing the
surface temperature decreases the sticking coefficient and if E_{des} < E_{a}, increasing T_{s} favours sticking.
p. 204
4.14. Write out expressions of Eq. (4.79) in the limits of
Note: Correction to text in which Eq. (4.80) was mentioned)
Chapter 5
p. 225 The final sentence of the second paragraph should read
The general composition consists of rhodium, platinum and palladium
dispersed on Al_{2} O_{
3} with CeO_{ 2} added as a
type of promoter.
p. 237 second line should read
"A Si(100) surface with the same..."
Chapter 6
p. 250, line 8
A tensile force pulls away from the interface.
p. 280 Fig. 6.15. Panel (a) is incorrect but then you can't see it
anyway.
p. 302 Hodgson in Index (not Hogson)
A.1 Table of Fundamental Constants
Add
hc = 1.986449 x 10^{–25} J m
k_{B} = 8.61741 x 10^{ –5} eV K^{–1}
k_{B} = 0.69504 cm^{ –1} K^{–1}
Go to the University of Virginia
home page
Maintained by kolasinski@virginia.edu
Last Modified: 7 November 2005